Why did Amaral and PJ suspect the McCanns and Murat as being somehow involved?

[gilet]

I have been given special permission to start this thread to explore the reasons why the McCanns and Murat were suspected by the Portuguese Police of involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Why do you need special permission to start any thread. That sounds like total bunkum.

Please do explain.

There should be no reason on a forum for "special permission" to be needed to start threads. Why is that now the case here?

[Jean-Pierre]

,

To answer the question.

When police interview potential suspects, do you always believe they tell the truth ?

i.e. they feed misinformation to suspects to try and get a breakthrough.

Of course they do.  But falling short of deliberate misrepresentation.  The PJ were claiming something which they knew they had not got.   

Unless their aim was merely to get a confession. 

[gilet]

The forensics were inconclusive, which is not quite the same thing. Probably due to contamination of the crime scene, by the Mccanns and associates, and subsequently.

The crucial point about the reasons that the McCanns and indeed Murat were made arguidos is not the original reasons but the fact that none of these reasons were ever proven to be significant or evidence against the McCanns.

As the Public Prosecutor stated:

"... 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 police - 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."

There is no question in his mind about things being inconclusive. The dog alerts simply were not ratified.

It was because none of the initial suspicions as outlined by the Prosecutor were consolidated that he was able to declare that there was no evidence of any crime by any of the arguidos.

The initial suspicions were it seems not founded in reality.

[gilet]

Of course they do.  But falling short of deliberate misrepresentation.  The PJ were claiming something which they knew they had not got.   

Unless their aim was merely to get a confession.

Two possibilities exist as to why the PJ under Amaral's direction lied to the McCanns. Either it was deliberate and cynical misrepresentation of the facts in order to attempt to force a confession. Or it was pure ignorance and inability to understand the forensic reports on the part of the officers concerned and their superiors.  Whichever, the fact is that the alerts were not ratified and therefore the unratified alerts (according to the prosecutor) did not constitute evidence against the couple.

If anyone can suggest another possibility then I would be willing to discuss it.

[Jean-Pierre]

Portuguese law changed on the 15th September 2007.  Prior to the 15th September, a person could be constituted an "arguido" on suspicion - and without actual evidence. 

On September 15 a new procedural penal code was introduced making it necessary for there to be evidence against the citizen before they could be made an arguido.

So after the 15th September it is unlikely the Mccanns could have been made arguidos. 

[gilet]

Portuguese law changed on the 15th September 2007.  Prior to the 15th September, a person could be constituted an "arguido" on suspicion - and without actual evidence. 

On September 15 a new procedural penal code was introduced making it necessary for there to be evidence against the citizen before they could be made an arguido.

So after the 15th September it is unlikely the Mccanns could have been made arguidos.

Judging from the Prosecutor's claims that there was in fact no evidence against the McCanns and his outline of the reasons why the suspicions did not translate into evidence, I believe you are correct.

[Carana]

The 'breaking in' claim can be explained very easily and put down to a lack of knowledge by the McCanns as to how window shutters worked in Portuguese apartments.  They didn't know that they could be lifted from the outside.  They also didn't know that they could be locked in the down position but still be raised sufficiently to allow some air and light through them without compromising security.

Had they been informed the outcome might well have been so different.

I agree with that.

What I don't understand is why so much store was placed on that initial assumption, not only as proof of wrongdoing, but insistence that she couldn't have been abducted because the first PJ team and various talking heads had decided that an abductor couldn't have entered and exited with the child via that window. I have no idea whether it would have been possible or not. Rebelo and his team did a reconstruction to test the possibility, but I haven't found the conclusion in the files.

For some reason, the simple fact of conveying that assumption to family members (and the initial press coverage) convinced the team that they were lying and had staged a coverup. But if they'd wanted to do that, when not actually jemmy them?

For some reason, the PJ didn't seem to consider that the initial assumption made in the thick of a panic discovery was simply wrong and that there were two other entry/exit points.

[AnneGuedes]

If not arguida, Mrs McCann would have just been a witness and, without a lawyer, would have had to answer to the 48 questions, the first one being decisive.
This is why Alipio Ribeiro, the director of the PJ, lamented the precipitation to make them arguidos.
BTW here in Portugal the PJ is under the control of the MP.

[Jean-Pierre]

If not arguida, Mrs McCann would have just been a witness and, without a lawyer, would have had to answer to the 48 questions, the first one being decisive.
This is why Alipio Ribeiro, the director of the PJ, lamented the precipitation to make them arguidos.
BTW here in Portugal the PJ is under the control of the MP.

Your statement betrays a fundamental lack of undertanding of the Portuguese penal code, Anne. 

The PJ would not have been able to ask those questions of a witness. 

[gilet]

If not arguida, Mrs McCann would have just been a witness and, without a lawyer, would have had to answer to the 48 questions, the first one being decisive.
This is why Alipio Ribeiro, the director of the PJ, lamented the precipitation to make them arguidos.
BTW here in Portugal the PJ is under the control of the MP.

Please give a citation to prove your claim that is the reason Alipio Ribeiro lamented the precipitation to make the McCanns arguidos.

There are other possible explanations as to his statement and I, so far, have not seen anything which proves that was the reason he had.

Are you speculating or do you have proof?

[AnneGuedes]

For some reason, the PJ didn't seem to consider that the initial assumption made in the thick of a panic discovery was simply wrong and that there were two other entry/exit points.

No, there aren't two entry/exit points. The "patio door" isn't a door (so an entry/exit point) as shows its name in Portuguese -- window-door -- : you can pass through it but you can't open and shut it on either side, as you would in the case of a normal door. If you close this window door from the outside, you block it and can't get in again, the mechanism existing only on the inside for obvious reasons of security.
This window door was misused by the McCanns, not during day time (Mr McCann would close it behind his family), but at night because, leaving apart burglars, her daughter, who likely would'nt have easily manipulated the mechanism, easily could slide the open door and leave.

[Carana]

No, there aren't two entry/exit points. The "patio door" isn't a door (so an entry/exit point) as shows its name in Portuguese -- window-door -- : you can pass through it but you can't open and shut it on either side, as you would in the case of a normal door. If you close this window door from the outside, you block it and can't get in again, the mechanism existing only on the inside for obvious reasons of security.
This window door was misused by the McCanns, not during day time (Mr McCann would close it behind his family), but at night because, leaving apart burglars, her daughter, who likely would'nt have easily manipulated the mechanism, easily could slide the open door and leave.

Well, I can only think of a few possibilities in that case:

- Everyone who stated they they had gone in and out that way were lying (with the others and covering up for for the others for some reason);
- The door was left very slightly open so as not to engage a locking mechanism;
- The sliding glass door (known as French windows) didn't actually lock when it was shut and was different to the ones you are familiar with.

[gilet]

No, there aren't two entry/exit points. The "patio door" isn't a door (so an entry/exit point) as shows its name in Portuguese -- window-door -- : you can pass through it but you can't open and shut it on either side, as you would in the case of a normal door. If you close this window door from the outside, you block it and can't get in again, the mechanism existing only on the inside for obvious reasons of security.
This window door was misused by the McCanns, not during day time (Mr McCann would close it behind his family), but at night because, leaving apart burglars, her daughter, who likely would'nt have easily manipulated the mechanism, easily could slide the open door and leave.

This is utterly ridiculous. The patio door is a door in normal conversation and comment. It is a point of entry and exit. That is the definition as found in Dicionario Priberam.

Pretence that it is not a door cannot explain anything. Pretence that people do not in fact use such doors as a means of exit and entry is counterproductive as everyone knows that people do in fact do that by the simple procedure of making sure that the locking mechanism isn't activated when sliding the door towards the frame.

[sadie]

No, there aren't two entry/exit points. The "patio door" isn't a door (so an entry/exit point) as shows its name in Portuguese -- window-door -- : you can pass through it but you can't open and shut it on either side, as you would in the case of a normal door. If you close this window door from the outside, you block it and can't get in again, the mechanism existing only on the inside for obvious reasons of security.
This window door was misused by the McCanns, not during day time (Mr McCann would close it behind his family), but at night because, leaving apart burglars, her daughter, who likely would'nt have easily manipulated the mechanism, easily could slide the open door and leave.

Anne what a load of claptrap.  Sorry, but fancy saying that there were not two other entry points.

What are you on, gal?

and it clearly contravenes  Johns caveat.;

I will add that this topic is extremely important to the case given what happened to the parents.  I expect all posters to stick to the facts and refrain from speculations.

Senior Editor

[sadie]

Portuguese law changed on the 15th September 2007.  Prior to the 15th September, a person could be constituted an "arguido" on suspicion - and without actual evidence. 

On September 15 a new procedural penal code was introduced making it necessary for there to be evidence against the citizen before they could be made an arguido.

So after the 15th September it is unlikely the Mccanns could have been made arguidos.

I find this very interesting.  Seems Amaral had to rush to get them "in his clutches"?