Making Sergey Malinka an arguido didn't have to be publicly evidenced. That too was dumb.
Just as making Ricardo Rodrigues, Paulo Ribeiro and José Carlos da Silva arguidos was dumb.
Let me put this in as plain and blunt terms as I can. If you want help or information from the people of Luz, do you p**s on them first? It seems OG thinks that is the way to go.
It's a mistake the McCanns also made, IMO.
OG is NOT conducting an exhaustive investigation. That should have started with the T9. Epic fail.
I have no confidence that OG could organise a p**s-up in a brewery. That's IMO.
What was dumb about wanting to question certain people under caution - people who had big question marks over them as a result of OG's analysis of the evidence already gathered? It would be more dumb not to question them. SY couldn't do it in the UK so how do you suppose they could eliminate them from whatever line of enquiry those arguidos were a part of?It is an intelligent question, so here is a civil answer.
OG will have spoken to ALL UK witnesses. That is routine when everything is drawn back to zero.
BTW why do you think SM had his arguido status lifted so quickly?
It is an intelligent question, so here is a civil answer.
Kate was questioned first as a witness, then her status was changed to arguido. As a witness, Kate was legally obliged to answer each question, which she did. As an arguido, she had the right to refuse to answer, which she did.
Sergey was questioned in 2007 as a witness, requiring him to answer all questions. That he should be questioned in 2014 as an arguido, when he could refuse to answer, strikes me as dumb. That he was announced as being a person no longer of interest relatively quickly, strikes me as fair and decent, but it strongly suggests the original decision was dumb.
The '3 burglars' are interesting. For all I know, one or more could be involved. In which case, making them witnesses first to ascertain basic non-incriminating facts seems smart, then imposing arguido status for crunchy questions seems the way to go.
If I get a chance, I will ask Snr Paulo Ribeiro how his interview went.
The media reported first that Sergey Malinka was no longer of interest. The news that the other 3 were no longer of interest came shortly before the 10th anniversary.
The media reported first that Sergey Malinka was no longer of interest. The news that the other 3 were no longer of interest came shortly before the 10th anniversary.
Q: How old were the suspects because I think you interviewed them originally through the Portuguese
beginning of July 2014?
MR: By the end of the year we were happy to have brought them out and we were moving on to other
parts of the investigation.
It is an intelligent question, so here is a civil answer.
Kate was questioned first as a witness, then her status was changed to arguido. As a witness, Kate was legally obliged to answer each question, which she did. As an arguido, she had the right to refuse to answer, which she did.
Sergey was questioned in 2007 as a witness, requiring him to answer all questions. That he should be questioned in 2014 as an arguido, when he could refuse to answer, strikes me as dumb. That he was announced as being a person no longer of interest relatively quickly, strikes me as fair and decent, but it strongly suggests the original decision was dumb.
The '3 burglars' are interesting. For all I know, one or more could be involved. In which case, making them witnesses first to ascertain basic non-incriminating facts seems smart, then imposing arguido status for crunchy questions seems the way to go.
If I get a chance, I will ask Snr Paulo Ribeiro how his interview went.
The media reported first that Sergey Malinka was no longer of interest. The news that the other 3 were no longer of interest came shortly before the 10th anniversary.
This is a Portuguese investigation.
Scotland Yard are constrained by the rules imposed by the Portuguese Justice system.
Which dictates that those Portuguese Nationals questioned by the Portuguese police asking set rogatory questions on behalf of Scotland Yard, with the Brits looking on as observers, were made arguidos by the Portuguese in accordance with Portuguese law.
Scotland Yard were refused permission to go anywhere else with investigating these arguidos ... again in accordance with Portuguese Law and as usual where JITs are not the procedure, it is a long drawn out time wasting procedure.
The point I am making is that Scotland Yard are constrained when allowed to work in a foreign country by the laws and procedures of that country.
Therefore the "dumb" epithet you insist on, actually has nothing to do with Scotland Yard beyond the procedures they must follow in investigating a case on foreign soil.
In my opinion, you are failing to appreciate that your criticism is entirely of the Portuguese lawful imposition of protection for the rights of Portuguese citizens ... which you appear to think "dumb".
Was it the PJ who decided to make the men arguidos?
Of course it was. No one else has the right, other than those being questioned.
Of course it was. No one else has the right, other than those being questioned.
I asked who made the decision, not who carried it out. Obviously the PJ put the status in place but why? Was it because the PJ decided it was the right thing to do or did the questions requested by OG made it unavoidable? It could have been because the men requested it.When being asked did you murder Madeleine all protection necessary should have and looks to have been afforded the Arguidos.
So its likely those being questioned asked then.
I asked who made the decision, not who carried it out. Obviously the PJ put the status in place but why? Was it because the PJ decided it was the right thing to do or did the questions requested by OG made it unavoidable? It could have been because the men requested it.
If the men were correctly advised then they could have asked. We simply don't know who instituted this status so I doubt that anyone can answer as to who made the decision.
I agree. I think it's the PJ's job to make people arguidos, but why they did so in a particular case can't be assumed.
I asked who made the decision, not who carried it out. Obviously the PJ put the status in place but why? Was it because the PJ decided it was the right thing to do or did the questions requested by OG made it unavoidable? It could have been because the men requested it.
Heri once posted on here that a source had told him one of the arguidos had spilled some beans & incriminated another of the arguidos. We didn't hear any more but I wonder where his source got that info from? Possibly the same place Blacksmith got the full list of people SY wanted to question back in 2014?I am not quite sure what is going on re either point.
This is a Portuguese investigation.No, I am not.
Scotland Yard are constrained by the rules imposed by the Portuguese Justice system.
Which dictates that those Portuguese Nationals questioned by the Portuguese police asking set rogatory questions on behalf of Scotland Yard, with the Brits looking on as observers, were made arguidos by the Portuguese in accordance with Portuguese law.
Scotland Yard were refused permission to go anywhere else with investigating these arguidos ... again in accordance with Portuguese Law and as usual where JITs are not the procedure, it is a long drawn out time wasting procedure.
The point I am making is that Scotland Yard are constrained when allowed to work in a foreign country by the laws and procedures of that country.
Therefore the "dumb" epithet you insist on, actually has nothing to do with Scotland Yard beyond the procedures they must follow in investigating a case on foreign soil.
In my opinion, you are failing to appreciate that your criticism is entirely of the Portuguese lawful imposition of protection for the rights of Portuguese citizens ... which you appear to think "dumb".
Of course it was. No one else has the right, other than those being questioned.I think that was the point G-Unit was making. We have a paucity of evidence about whether it was imposed or requested.
When being asked did you murder Madeleine all protection necessary should have and looks to have been afforded the Arguidos.If they were genuinely asked that, did OG really expect them to crack and admit it?
https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/arguidos-answered-to-250-questions-and.html
Going away from topic though.
I am not quite sure what is going on re either point.
Paulo Ribeiro stated in his Panorama interview that the police turned up on his doorstep, saying he had been named as matching a drawing or e-fit. I can only remember a single prior photo of him, and it is not good enough to permit me to make an accurate assessment of whether he matches any sketch or e-fit. I would guess this was as a result of publicity around Crimewatch 2013, but there is no direct connection path that I am aware of.
I don't read Blacksmith, so unless you are kind enough to provide a copy of that list, I am at a disadvantage.
I have seen a list of the people allegedly interviewed by OG in Dec 2014, though I cannot verify its provenance. I thought it was reasonably accurate. However, Panorama asserted that Vitor dos Santos was questioned by OG, and Vitor dos Santos confirmed he was indeed interviewed by police around the end of 2014. That was news to me because Vitor dos Santos was not on the list of interviewees that I have seen.
It appears Panorama has access to a better list than I have.
In your post #1468, you said it was dumb for the PJ to make the "3 burglars" arguidos. During the original investigation. the PJ didn't analyse the phone data in enough detail to discover that there was an important triangulation of calls during the crucial period around Madeleine's disappearance.
Heri went on to report a possible development to us. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2784.msg173384#msg173384 . That may have rendered the statement it was dumb to question the 4 men equally dumb. I do not know who Heri's source was but Blacksmith's source was certainly spot on with the names of the additional people SY wanted to question. I don't think the link to the blog is available now but the info is available on the forum which is currently self-imploding under a thread entitled Blacksmith.
I do not know who Heri's source was but Blacksmith's source was certainly spot on with the names of the additional people SY wanted to question. I don't think the link to the blog is available now but the info is available on the forum which is currently self-imploding under a thread entitled Blacksmith.
In your post #1468, you said it was dumb for the PJ to make the "3 burglars" arguidos. During the original investigation. the PJ didn't analyse the phone data in enough detail to discover that there was an important triangulation of calls during the crucial period around Madeleine's disappearance.My memory may be at fault, but I remember in the Panorama interview with Pedro do Carmo that the PJ considered 3 men in Luz making calls/texts to each other not to be sufficient cause for further investigation.
Heri went on to report a possible development to us. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2784.msg173384#msg173384 . That may have rendered the statement it was dumb to question the 4 men equally dumb. I do not know who Heri's source was but Blacksmith's source was certainly spot on with the names of the additional people SY wanted to question. I don't think the link to the blog is available now but the info is available on the forum which is currently self-imploding under a thread entitled Blacksmith.
You have to be a member to see it I believe.
My memory may be at fault, but I remember in the Panorama interview with Pedro do Carmo that the PJ considered 3 men in Luz making calls/texts to each other not to be sufficient cause for further investigation.
The phone system did not permit 'triangulation'. Roughly speaking, all 3 mobile operators split Luz into west v east, and that is as detailed as it gets.
Paulo Ribeiro apparently lived in 'west' Luz, and in Panorama said he was home that night. If his phone traffic that night turned up outside 'west' Luz, it would be suspicious. Roughly speaking, the only other place it would be detected was 'east' Luz, which is a large area with many establishments, but critically it also contains apartment 5A.
If you wish to PM me with some pointer to Blacksmith, or whichever forum is imploding, I will be happy to spend some time looking at the list of 11 again.
With regards to Heri, I have met him in the flesh. I found him to be extremely affable. He had a decent amount of local knowledge, as he had visited Luz more than once. His understanding of the 3 burglars angle was obviously far superior to mine. He has been far more active with OG and the media than I have. I rate his expertise in the case highly. I simply disagree with his theory.
I also discussed with Heri 'my' theory. He was one of those who urged me to contact OG with it, which I did. I am fairly sure he did not abandon 'his' theory in favour of 'my' theory. He is probably the reason that 'my' theory featured prominently on Panorama's 10th anniversary special. I cannot see why Panorama would have been interested in me otherwise.
From reading Heri's blog & his comments on here, it seems he had uncovered information which the PJ had missed so there was a little more than just a few phone calls being of interest. Clearly Panorama were interested enough to include it in their documentary. However, if the 3 burglars were still a part of the current lines of investigation the BBC would not have been permitted to air the details or approach the former suspects. Likewise, VS.I am not looking in any particular direction.
Maybe you're just looking in the wrong direction.
I'm not a member & I can read it.
If I type Blacksmith in it leads me to a sign in page.
Google is a girl's best friend. Try J....H...... + Blacksmith + arguidos & it should be the first link.
I believe the arguidos should not have been named publicly but I understand that is the way the Portuguese do it so who are we to criticise?If they weren't named everyone spoken to by the PJ would be under suspicion of being an arguido.
If they weren't named everyone spoken to by the PJ would be under suspicion of being an arguido.I dont believe they should have been named and the names released to the public.
I dont believe they should have been named and the names released to the public.
I would have thought that an organisation as l;arge as the PJ could have devised a system where they took the suspects somewhere else and questioned them in private, away from the public eye
I have never publicly divulged the name of my suspect, despite a multitude of pointers, because i am aware how devastating such publicity, especially in this potential [paedophillic and with global interest] case could be to the man i suspect.
Even in a mundane case, I would never, I hope, publicly point the finger at the culprit.
Apart from the awfulness of accusing someone, I am grounded enough to know that I could be wrong, despite all the scores of pointers.
PS This suspect of mine has never, as far as i am aware, been suggested on any other forum
I dont believe they should have been named and the names released to the public.
I would have thought that an organisation as l;arge as the PJ could have devised a system where they took the suspects somewhere else and questioned them in private, away from the public eye
I have never publicly divulged the name of my suspect, despite a multitude of pointers, because i am aware how devastating such publicity, especially in this potential [paedophillic and with global interest] case could be to the man i suspect.
Even in a mundane case, I would never, I hope, publicly point the finger at the culprit.
Apart from the awfulness of accusing someone, I am grounded enough to know that I could be wrong, despite all the scores of pointers.
PS This suspect of mine has never, as far as i am aware, been suggested on any other forum
I don't think the public should be given any information about a suspect unless and until he or she is charged. The stigma can be a life changer, one only needs to look at what happened to Chris Jefferies in the Yeates case.I am pleased to agree with you on this John.
If you named someone you could be sued for libel, the police could not.They are only naming them as arguidos which isn't any claim against that person so I can't see how they could sue.
They are only naming them as arguidos which isn't any claim against that person so I can't see how they could sue.
I suppose they can make it sound dramatic "Kate and Gerry McCann have been declared arguidos ..."
Do you think that being named as an arguido in a possible child abduction/murder case is reputation enhancing?Of course not but it could be very dependent on the level of involvement. Like the McCanns said "we are not involved in the disappearance of our daughter ...." hence it didn't seem to worry them.
Of course not but it could be very dependent on the level of involvement. Like the McCanns said "we are not involved in the disappearance of our daughter ...." hence it didn't seem to worry them.
The other side of the coin is that you are under suspicion just because you happened to use your mobile on the night of 3/05/2007.In that area, and phoning your colleagues in that area too. There was more to it than just a single call made.
In that area, and phoning your colleagues in that area too. There was more to it than just a single call made.Don't you phone or text your friends in your local area? Or do you avoid it in case you get made suspects?
In that area, and phoning your colleagues in that area too. There was more to it than just a single call made.That is suspicious?
That is suspicious?Anything tghat happened on that night, in the pertinent area and at the right time, would be reagrded as suspicious, or worth looking at to a good investigator.
That is suspicious?That is how they use phone record analysis to get areas of suspicion.
Of course not but it could be very dependent on the level of involvement. Like the McCanns said "we are not involved in the disappearance of our daughter ...." hence it didn't seem to worry them.
It worried them enough to get out of there earlier than planned. It worried Kate to not answer police questions.
7 Sept - named Arguido
9 Sept - left Portugal
"Later, the McCanns' spokesman confirmed the plans in a statement, saying: "Kate and Gerry will be returning home to the UK this morning as originally planned. They will depart from Faro Airport."
A later date was originally planned - Hey Spokesman isn't that the truth?
The original leaving date was the 10th Sept. which was the day before the date on which they were required to vacate the villa anyway. They left on the 9th - one day earlier than originally planned.
A hasty departure in any language.
Uma partida apressada em qualquer idioma.
Anything tghat happened on that night, in the pertinent area and at the right time, would be reagrded as suspicious, or worth looking at to a good investigator.
What - one day earlier than originally planned?? Seriously?
What was there to stay for? From their POV - they knew they were not the perpetrator(s) but after being made arguidos they now knew that the PJ were not looking for a live Madeleine - they were looking for reasons to pin the crime on them.
After getting an insight from the 48 questions - into what the PJ were actually prepared to class as 'serious evidence' - then any normal person would have to be insane to stay in those circumstances IMO.
Actually no. The job of a detective is to investigate a possible crime and that is what they were doing. The McCann's early departure from Portugal was unhelpful to that aim. The conduct of their friends also hindered a proper investigation, Madeleine would have been so proud.The friends had long gone.
The friends had long gone.
Actually no. The job of a detective is to investigate a possible crime and that is what they were doing. The McCann's early departure from Portugal was unhelpful to that aim. The conduct of their friends also hindered a proper investigation, Madeleine would have been so proud.
Long gone, never to return
Absolutely and when requested to return to take part in a reconstruction so that people could be ruled out of the investigation they ultimately refused to cooperate. Madeleine would be so grateful to them all.
Absolutely and when requested to return to take part in a reconstruction so that people could be ruled out of the investigation they ultimately refused to cooperate. Madeleine would be so grateful to them all.
Absolutely and when requested to return to take part in a reconstruction so that people could be ruled out of the investigation they ultimately refused to cooperate. Madeleine would be so grateful to them all.When I disagree with you, John, am I not allowed to respond?
When I disagree with you, John, am I not allowed to respond?
I see that once again my response to you has been deleted. Why?
Don't you think it would have advanced the investigation in a more meaningful direction if the Policia Judiciaria had under their new coordinator also taken a new course of action in preference to harking back to the mistakes of the previous investigation.
What information could they possibly have gained from bringing the McCann friends back to what by that time was an extremely suspicious and hostile environment in which apparently innocence is no guarantee of impunity?
Why not diversify from those who were already thoroughly investigated, phone records and all?
Why not reconstruct those who had always been within their jurisdiction, who briefly attracted the interest of the first investigation but who were let off the hook by the preferred direction decided by the investigators.
A proper look at the phone records should have tipped them the wink that there were many other avenues still open for scrutiny and it shouldn't really have been too difficult for a modern police force to have found them.
After all Scotland Yard found plenty of investigative opportunities years after the event, including one which a member of this forum discovered from the limited information available to him in the internet files.
Was this part and parcel of the preference for a foreign perpetrator as it all seems to be unravelling as far as racist attitudes of the Portuguese police are presently being addressed.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5764.msg416519#msg416519
Amaral now freely admits that mistakes were made early on. Too much emphasis was placed on the abduction scenario despite a total lack of any credible evidence that one had taken place. The parents and to a lesser degree some of their friends were allowed to call the shots to the detriment of the investigation. The Press were allowed to prance around and turn the situation into a circus with performing clowns topping the bill.
The tapas group and other foreign witnesses should never have been allowed to leave the country until a proper reconstruction had been carried out. Suspects should have been identified and designated arguidos much earlier. Political interference by the British authorities however conspired to destroy the investigative process by denying the investigators the support they needed to check out suspects properly. Background checks and other information requested by the Portuguese police were denied to them by their English counterparts.
Does that mean that UK background checks on the first arguido could also have been withheld?
Amaral now freely admits that mistakes were made early on. Too much emphasis was placed on the abduction scenario despite a total lack of any credible evidence that one had taken place. The parents and to a lesser degree some of their friends were allowed to call the shots to the detriment of the investigation. The Press were allowed to prance around and turn the situation into a circus with performing clowns topping the bill.
The tapas group and other foreign witnesses should never have been allowed to leave the country until a proper reconstruction had been carried out. Suspects should have been identified and designated arguidos much earlier. Political interference by the British authorities however conspired to destroy the investigative process by denying the investigators the support they needed to check out suspects properly. Background checks and other information requested by the Portuguese police were denied to them by their English counterparts.
Frankly, it isn't at all surprising that Amaral came to some of the conclusions he did. He was acutely aware that there was in existence a conspiracy to discredit him and have him removed from the investigation the moment his detectives moved to rule out stranger abduction and started to consider parental involvement.
Who was in charge of the investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance? The Policia Judiciaria under the command of Goncalo Amaral?
The parents and their friends were not responsible for who had access to the scene immediately the Portuguese police arrived to investigate. The police should have been and they had been ordered to do so.
Nor were the victims responsible if the forensic were unusable ... bearing in mind the contamination from cigarette ash and dogs emanating from police sources in attendance and the fact that the bedding was removed and washed and not preserved as evidence or sent for analysis.
The police decide on what should be investigated when a crime has been committed ... following the evidence at the scene and in the case of a potential abduction eye witness evidence in particular.
If Amaral claims the victims and witnesses called the shots and dictated the course of the investigation ... all he was doing was highlighting ineptitude and incompetence on the part of the police ... who were under his command.
They were in control and should have exercised it over the situation, yet the senior officer claims the victims took over his investigation and dictated the terms.
Think about it.
The claims Amaral made regarding foreign interference which became so embarrassing they eventually led to his dismissal ~ are risible.
The Portuguese are a proud sovereign nation whose prosecutors and politicians just would not have tolerated such a situation which equates to political suicide.
Neither am I at all surprised that Amaral came up with the lame excuses he did to cover the incompetence of his investigation.
As far as reconstruction is concerned the decision against was taken by the PJ when it might have been of some use in finding Madeleine, or even witnesses coming forward, like the Smiths who hadn't at that time made the connection that they might be in possession of relevant information.
In chapter five Amaral writes ...
"The reconstruction was never to take place. The reasons put forward to justify that decision - in spite of opinions to the contrary - are multiple.
There are lots of holiday-makers at this time and sealing off the perimeter would ruin their stay;
the airspace would have to be closed;
the hotel complex would be overrun with hordes of journalists;
people might think that the parents and their friends were suspects and, of course, the field mustn't be left open for that kind of deliberation.
For all that, a more discreet reconstruction, even partial, with only the couple present, might provide useful information. No a priori judgment is implied, quite the contrary."
Goncalo Amaral
It is my opinion that Amaral should never have been allowed near the case of a missing child and I think that had he been allowed free rein it is highly probable we might have had a board on the forum arguing for the McCann release from a Portuguese jail.
With the added bonus for any perpetrator that no-one would have been looking for a "dead" child over the past few years with her parents safely discredited under lock and key and unable to help her.
If they had looked after their children properly, he wouldn't have become involved.
Amaral now freely admits that mistakes were made early on. Too much emphasis was placed on the abduction scenario despite a total lack of any credible evidence that one had taken place. The parents and to a lesser degree some of their friends were allowed to call the shots to the detriment of the investigation. The Press were allowed to prance around and turn the situation into a circus with performing clowns topping the bill.
The tapas group and other foreign witnesses should never have been allowed to leave the country until a proper reconstruction had been carried out. Suspects should have been identified and designated arguidos much earlier. Political interference by the British authorities however conspired to destroy the investigative process by denying the investigators the support they needed to check out suspects properly. Background checks and other information requested by the Portuguese police were denied to them by their English counterparts.
Frankly, it isn't at all surprising that Amaral came to some of the conclusions he did. He was acutely aware that there was in existence a conspiracy to discredit him and have him removed from the investigation the moment his detectives moved to rule out stranger abduction and started to consider parental involvement.
Who was in charge of the investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance? The Policia Judiciaria under the command of Goncalo Amaral?
The parents and their friends were not responsible for who had access to the scene immediately the Portuguese police arrived to investigate. The police should have been and they had been ordered to do so.
Nor were the victims responsible if the forensic were unusable ... bearing in mind the contamination from cigarette ash and dogs emanating from police sources in attendance and the fact that the bedding was removed and washed and not preserved as evidence or sent for analysis.
The police decide on what should be investigated when a crime has been committed ... following the evidence at the scene and in the case of a potential abduction eye witness evidence in particular.
If Amaral claims the victims and witnesses called the shots and dictated the course of the investigation ... all he was doing was highlighting ineptitude and incompetence on the part of the police ... who were under his command.
They were in control and should have exercised it over the situation, yet the senior officer claims the victims took over his investigation and dictated the terms.
Think about it.
The claims Amaral made regarding foreign interference which became so embarrassing they eventually led to his dismissal ~ are risible.
The Portuguese are a proud sovereign nation whose prosecutors and politicians just would not have tolerated such a situation which equates to political suicide.
Neither am I at all surprised that Amaral came up with the lame excuses he did to cover the incompetence of his investigation.
As far as reconstruction is concerned the decision against was taken by the PJ when it might have been of some use in finding Madeleine, or even witnesses coming forward, like the Smiths who hadn't at that time made the connection that they might be in possession of relevant information.
In chapter five Amaral writes ...
"The reconstruction was never to take place. The reasons put forward to justify that decision - in spite of opinions to the contrary - are multiple.
There are lots of holiday-makers at this time and sealing off the perimeter would ruin their stay;
the airspace would have to be closed;
the hotel complex would be overrun with hordes of journalists;
people might think that the parents and their friends were suspects and, of course, the field mustn't be left open for that kind of deliberation.
For all that, a more discreet reconstruction, even partial, with only the couple present, might provide useful information. No a priori judgment is implied, quite the contrary."
Goncalo Amaral
It is my opinion that Amaral should never have been allowed near the case of a missing child and I think that had he been allowed free rein it is highly probable we might have had a board on the forum arguing for the McCann release from a Portuguese jail.
With the added bonus for any perpetrator that no-one would have been looking for a "dead" child over the past few years with her parents safely discredited under lock and key and unable to help her.
Does that mean that UK background checks on the first arguido could also have been withheld?
Who was in charge of the investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance? The Policia Judiciaria under the command of Goncalo Amaral?
The parents and their friends were not responsible for who had access to the scene immediately the Portuguese police arrived to investigate. The police should have been and they had been ordered to do so.
Nor were the victims responsible if the forensic were unusable ... bearing in mind the contamination from cigarette ash and dogs emanating from police sources in attendance and the fact that the bedding was removed and washed and not preserved as evidence or sent for analysis.
The police decide on what should be investigated when a crime has been committed ... following the evidence at the scene and in the case of a potential abduction eye witness evidence in particular.
If Amaral claims the victims and witnesses called the shots and dictated the course of the investigation ... all he was doing was highlighting ineptitude and incompetence on the part of the police ... who were under his command.
They were in control and should have exercised it over the situation, yet the senior officer claims the victims took over his investigation and dictated the terms.
Think about it.
The claims Amaral made regarding foreign interference which became so embarrassing they eventually led to his dismissal ~ are risible.
The Portuguese are a proud sovereign nation whose prosecutors and politicians just would not have tolerated such a situation which equates to political suicide.
Neither am I at all surprised that Amaral came up with the lame excuses he did to cover the incompetence of his investigation.
As far as reconstruction is concerned the decision against was taken by the PJ when it might have been of some use in finding Madeleine, or even witnesses coming forward, like the Smiths who hadn't at that time made the connection that they might be in possession of relevant information.
In chapter five Amaral writes ...
"The reconstruction was never to take place. The reasons put forward to justify that decision - in spite of opinions to the contrary - are multiple.
There are lots of holiday-makers at this time and sealing off the perimeter would ruin their stay;
the airspace would have to be closed;
the hotel complex would be overrun with hordes of journalists;
people might think that the parents and their friends were suspects and, of course, the field mustn't be left open for that kind of deliberation.
For all that, a more discreet reconstruction, even partial, with only the couple present, might provide useful information. No a priori judgment is implied, quite the contrary."
Goncalo Amaral
It is my opinion that Amaral should never have been allowed near the case of a missing child and I think that had he been allowed free rein it is highly probable we might have had a board on the forum arguing for the McCann release from a Portuguese jail.
With the added bonus for any perpetrator that no-one would have been looking for a "dead" child over the past few years with her parents safely discredited under lock and key and unable to help her.
You give me the impression that you believe one man ran the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance. His job was to coordinate, not direct. The PJ put Neves and Encarnacao in charge, but ultimately the prosecutors and judges decided what could and could not be done.
Isn't it time to abandon the idea that one man alone decided everything? It's a very naive view of how things work in the Portuguese system in my opinion.
IIRC the judge at the original trial thought Amaral was in charge of running the investigation. I believe she also described Tavares as his 2nd in command.
(from memory so am happy to be corrected if necessary)
I don't know what she thought and have no intention of trawling through the material to find out. She seems to have made mistakes in her own area of expertise, though, so her beliefs about the PJ could easily be wrong too.
You give me the impression that you believe one man ran the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance. His job was to coordinate, not direct. The PJ put Neves and Encarnacao in charge, but ultimately the prosecutors and judges decided what could and could not be done.
Isn't it time to abandon the idea that one man alone decided everything? It's a very naive view of how things work in the Portuguese system in my opinion.
Out of curiousity, what reference have you found to the names of Neves & Encarnacao in the files showing their role in the direction of the investigation? All reports appear to be addressed to the Coordinator of the Investigation.
That couldn't possibly be connected in any way to the high media profile he assumed as a result ... his claims in his book ... his claims in his video ... and his claims throughout the media career he built on Madeleine's disappearance?
Not to mention his campaign of vilification directed at her parents whose fault, as far as I can determine, seemed to be continuing their search for Madeleine and their insistence that her case be reopened ... in which they were ultimately successful.
we met Guilhermino Encarnação, the director of the Algarve Polícia Judiciária, based in Faro, who was overseeing the investigation.............
The officers we met on that occasion, and would continue to meet regularly, were the two men ultimately in charge of the investigation. Guilhermino Encarnação, chief of the Algarve PJ, based in Faro, we had encountered at the police station in Portimão on the day after Madeleine’s abduction. The other was Luís Neves, head of the DCCB....
Late that afternoon, we were notified by Liz Dow, the British consul in Lisbon, that Luís Neves and Guilhermino Encarnação had declared us ‘free’ to leave the country whenever we wished.
[Madeleine]
I asked for a cite from the files, not Kate's perspective.
All the accumulated evidence was submitted to Amaral on DVD - how much of the data gathered on the "shop floor" was viewed by the "CEO's" for them to issue directives?
I dont believe they should have been named and the names released to the public.
I would have thought that an organisation as l;arge as the PJ could have devised a system where they took the suspects somewhere else and questioned them in private, away from the public eye
I have never publicly divulged the name of my suspect, despite a multitude of pointers, because i am aware how devastating such publicity, especially in this potential [paedophillic and with global interest] case could be to the man i suspect.
Even in a mundane case, I would never, I hope, publicly point the finger at the culprit.
Apart from the awfulness of accusing someone, I am grounded enough to know that I could be wrong, despite all the scores of pointers.
PS This suspect of mine has never, as far as i am aware, been suggested on any other forum
your suspect hasn't been arrested and charged if not why not?... could it be because it is a wild goose chase?My suspect in an elite with internationally important friends behind him and backed by an amazingly revered global Organisation that looks after their senior friends / bloodline members to the hilt. This organisation has made mega bucks from trafficking for centuries, but it presents a wonderful charitable face to the public at large
My suspect in an elite with internationally important friends behind him and backed by an amazingly revered global Organisation that looks after their senior friends / bloodline members to the hilt. This organisation has made mega bucks from trafficking for centuries, but it presents a wonderful charitable face to the public at large
Unless SY and the Porto PJ can find enough evidence to irretrievably convict my suspect, then IMO they will not attempt to do so.
And, of course, as i have said a number of times on this forum and elsewhere, despite the scores of pointers and being able to make a pretty near perfect jigsaw of the whole case (after leaving PdL especially) I am always aware that I could have made mistakes. Because of this I cannot be absolutely sure that I am totally correct.
If I am correct about the man, even if he is too untouchable to be charged, then the fact that SY is investigating him, should stop the nasty 'game' with children that he has been playing.
My main purpose in all the work I have done ... and believe me, it has been massive .... is to prevent such abductions carrying on and hopefully to return Madeleine to her family. I am concerned about the terrible injustices and damage that has been done to the whole Mccann family,
... However, it is not my main goal that the man in question be incarcerated in jail for life.
In fact, a psychiatric home might be a better place for him. Likeable tho' he appears, he displays bizarre behaviour.
The short answer to your question is 'Maybe the man is an untouchable'
We shall have to wait and see.
My suspect in an elite with internationally important friends behind him and backed by an amazingly revered global Organisation that looks after their senior friends / bloodline members to the hilt. This organisation has made mega bucks from trafficking for centuries, but it presents a wonderful charitable face to the public at large
Unless SY and the Porto PJ can find enough evidence to irretrievably convict my suspect, then IMO they will not attempt to do so.
And, of course, as i have said a number of times on this forum and elsewhere, despite the scores of pointers and being able to make a pretty near perfect jigsaw of the whole case (after leaving PdL especially) I am always aware that I could have made mistakes. Because of this I cannot be absolutely sure that I am totally correct.
If I am correct about the man, even if he is too untouchable to be charged, then the fact that SY is investigating him, should stop the nasty 'game' with children that he has been playing.
My main purpose in all the work I have done ... and believe me, it has been massive .... is to prevent such abductions carrying on and hopefully to return Madeleine to her family. I am concerned about the terrible injustices and damage that has been done to the whole Mccann family,
... However, it is not my main goal that the man in question be incarcerated in jail for life.
In fact, a psychiatric home might be a better place for him. Likeable tho' he appears, he displays bizarre behaviour.
The short answer to your question is 'Maybe the man is an untouchable'
We shall have to wait and see.
Amaral now freely admits that mistakes were made early on. Too much emphasis was placed on the abduction scenario despite a total lack of any credible evidence that one had taken place. The parents and to a lesser degree some of their friends were allowed to call the shots to the detriment of the investigation. The Press were allowed to prance around and turn the situation into a circus with performing clowns topping the bill.
The tapas group and other foreign witnesses should never have been allowed to leave the country until a proper reconstruction had been carried out. Suspects should have been identified and designated arguidos much earlier. Political interference by the British authorities however conspired to destroy the investigative process by denying the investigators the support they needed to check out suspects properly. Background checks and other information requested by the Portuguese police were denied to them by their English counterparts.
Frankly, it isn't at all surprising that Amaral came to some of the conclusions he did. He was acutely aware that there was in existence a conspiracy to discredit him and have him removed from the investigation the moment his detectives moved to rule out stranger abduction and started to consider parental involvement.
SY have spent millions on reading and checking out all Avenues. I wonder how much time and money was wasted on this adventure. Sorry Sadie but just too far fetched.
amaral hadnt got a clue...all his conclusions were base on his inability to understand the evidence...that is not opinion it is fact....the present investigation by SY and PJ have ruled out the parents based on the evidence and its not hard to understand why....Amarals idea that children fall off a sofa and die is patently ridiculous...some of us understand that
I'm afraid that Amaral has been privy to a lot more evidence than any of us could possibly gleam from a load of documents, his interpretation of that evidence is a matter for him.What a pity that he misunderstood so many things and used stuff that wasn't really evidence at all.
What a pity that he misunderstood so many things and used stuff that wasn't really evidence at all.
And that he had such a vivid imagination
My suspect in an elite with internationally important friends behind him and backed by an amazingly revered global Organisation that looks after their senior friends / bloodline members to the hilt. This organisation has made mega bucks from trafficking for centuries, but it presents a wonderful charitable face to the public at large
Unless SY and the Porto PJ can find enough evidence to irretrievably convict my suspect, then IMO they will not attempt to do so.
And, of course, as i have said a number of times on this forum and elsewhere, despite the scores of pointers and being able to make a pretty near perfect jigsaw of the whole case (after leaving PdL especially) I am always aware that I could have made mistakes. Because of this I cannot be absolutely sure that I am totally correct.
If I am correct about the man, even if he is too untouchable to be charged, then the fact that SY is investigating him, should stop the nasty 'game' with children that he has been playing.
My main purpose in all the work I have done ... and believe me, it has been massive .... is to prevent such abductions carrying on and hopefully to return Madeleine to her family. I am concerned about the terrible injustices and damage that has been done to the whole Mccann family,
... However, it is not my main goal that the man in question be incarcerated in jail for life.
In fact, a psychiatric home might be a better place for him. Likeable tho' he appears, he displays bizarre behaviour.
The short answer to your question is 'Maybe the man is an untouchable'
We shall have to wait and see.
amaral hadnt got a clue...all his conclusions were base on his inability to understand the evidence...that is not opinion it is fact....the present investigation by SY and PJ have ruled out the parents based on the evidence and its not hard to understand why....Amarals idea that children fall off a sofa and die is patently ridiculous...some of us understand that
The current investigation have not interviewed or investigated the parents.
They relied on the original shelving of the case, which they misinterpreted.
I'm afraid that Amaral has been privy to a lot more evidence than any of us could possibly gleam from a load of documents, his interpretation of that evidence is a matter for him.
What a pity that he misunderstood so many things and used stuff that wasn't really evidence at all.
And that he had such a vivid imagination
EVERYONE is posting Off Topic on this thread **including John**. Can we now make the effort to get back on track ... there must be plenty still to be said about 'arguidos' ... let's make the effort.
Agreed Bietta.
EVERYONE is posting Off Topic on this thread **including John**. Can we now make the effort to get back on track ... there must be plenty still to be said about 'arguidos' ... let's make the effort.
That may be your opinion
I don't agree at all
You never do but that is to be expected. Amaral was head honcho on the ground, he was privy to everything and that is a fact despite your crude attempts to deny it.
You don't seem to understand
I'm sure he was privy to all the facts
I've never denied anything so you are wrong on that score
John and you are making an assumption that there is evidence we have not heard of that implicates the McCann's
That is pure speculation
I would say there is not
That's my opinion
The pathetic attempts to incriminate Portuguese locals in a Maddie abduction scenario are shameful imo.Maddie may well have been abducted by a local
Maddie may well have been abducted by a local
That is a fact and nothing wrong with saying so
The pathetic attempts to incriminate Portuguese locals in a Maddie abduction scenario are shameful imo.Not if they were burglars operating in the area that night.
Abduction is a theory, as are the others.How do you justify that post under the heading "Was the naming of the arguidos an unnecessary and dumb move?"?
No firm evidence for any of them.
How do you justify that post under the heading "Was the naming of the arguidos an unnecessary and dumb move?"?
Are you kidding Rob ?
The arguidos were possible suspects in the hypothetical 'abduction.
The last 4 have been cleared.
Did you watch the BBC program where some were questioned ?
If The McCanns haven't been cleared then how do we know that these four have been cleared?
If The McCanns haven't been cleared then how do we know that these four have been cleared?
Are you kidding Rob ?How cleared do you think that was? Is there proof they were innocent or just insufficient evidence to charge them?
The arguidos were possible suspects in the hypothetical 'abduction.
The last 4 have been cleared.
Did you watch the BBC program where some were questioned ?
The Assistant Met Commisioner has said so, I believe.Exactly.
Then of course, arguido status can be re-enacted for up to 20 years.
How cleared do you think that was? Is there proof they were innocent or just insufficient evidence to charge them?Exactly.
Don't forget Rob, that applies to the Mccanns.Wouldn't the same apply similarly to all the arguidos since as you say there is no evidence.
The McCanns claimed that a specific event cleared them; the archiving dispatch. That was incorrect.
The Assistant Met Commisioner has said so, I believe.
Then of course, arguido status can be re-enacted for up to 20 years.
Not if they were burglars operating in the area that night.
If The McCanns haven't been cleared then how do we know that these four have been cleared?
Burglars and especially small time ones don't steal children.
Did you miss the Supreme Court pronouncement?
If The McCanns weren't cleared by having their Arguido Status removed, then nor have any other of The Arguidos. You simply cannot have it both ways.
Wouldn't the same apply similarly to all the arguidos since as you say there is no evidence.
Quite right but it only seems to be the McCanns ( and/or their supporters) who are really concerned about this. None of the other people who were arquido seem to be bothered.
Quite right but it only seems to be the McCanns ( and/or their supporters) who are really concerned about this. None of the other people who were arquido seem to be bothered.
It seemed very important to them that they be seen as innocent.As I recall they claimed the archive report was evidence of their innocence which of course it is
It seemed very important to them that they be seen as innocent.
As I recall they claimed the archive report was evidence of their innocence which of course it isNope.
Nope.
Perhaps you missed the court case.
Nope.
Perhaps you missed the court case.
As I recall they claimed the archive report was evidence of their innocence which of course it is
As I recall they claimed the archive report was evidence of their innocence which of course it is
The whole reason why their (and Murats) arguido status was removed was because NO evidence of guilt was found. A natural course of action which complies with the democratic principle of 'innocent until proved guilty' IMO.
If no evidence of guilt can be produced against a person then their legal status is exactly the same as any other person who has never been charged with a crime. They are regarded as innocent under the law and have exactly the same rights as everyone else in the land who have never been charged with a crime - all of whom are accepted and described by every civilised society as 'innocent'. There are no exceptions.
AIMHO
That is not strictly true.
It is explained in a paper by a couple of learned Portuguese advogados in a reference book on European Law which I referenced in a post earlier only to have it whooshed by the Mods so I can't reference it again 8(0(* but the bottom line is your assumption is incorrect... ?{)(**
Have the other Arguidos been Archived?As far as I understand, all 4 arguidos have been told they are no longer persons of interest. Whether that means they have been de-arguidoed in legal terms is beyond me.
I think there are people whose imaginations far outstrip Amaral's.Hopefully, time will tell 8**8:/:
Hopefully, time will tell 8**8:/:
As it stands that is merely your opinion
Just to brush on my modest legal knowledge a have.
Making someone arguidos is not dumb move actually it is a smart one and in Portugal the lawmakers have put this into a law so it is obligatory.
Scenario 1
1. If I call you at police station and ask you something regarding crime that occurred and you lie to me there is no consequences.
Scenario 2
2. If I call you at police station on a request of a judicial police(as party who enforce Criminal Procedure Law in many countries) regarding crime that occurred and you lie to me you go to jail. First for obstruction of justice later for other things.On top of it all your statement are valid evidence against someone else in the court of law because are taken by judicial appointees this in many other countries are done by investigative judge.
So no worries professionals are doing job here let them go through everything will make sense at the end. Just patience.
You make a really good pointYou have that wrong.
As I understand and please provide a cite if you disagree
Arguido is similar to being interviewed under caution
Therefore none of the McCann's statements non arguido could be used as evidence against them
You have that wrong.As I said if you disagree provide a cite
As I said if you disagree provide a citeHave you looked up Wikipedia?
Why is it wrong
From what I understand its absolutely right
Have you looked up Wikipedia?
Well , let's have the cited in formation please.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguido
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguido
Thank you Rob. 8((()*/
bear in mind anybody can edit wikipedia 8)--))
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguido
I objected to this statement "Therefore none of the McCann's statements non arguido could be used as evidence against them", for the non arguido statements must be the truth and if they were proven false they could be prosecuted for lying.
"the arguido must be presented with whatever evidence is held against them,[7] and unlike a witness has the right to remain silent,[8] not to answer any question that may incriminate the person, and does not face legal action for lying.[9]"
I have always had a problem with the British interpretation of the Portuguese word arguido. It has become widely accepted that it means official suspect but there is much more to it.
Someone suggested earlier that it is the equivalent in UK terms of being interviewed under caution. Arguidos are certainly cautioned as far as I understand prior to being interviewed and only then can their responses be later used in any trial.
I think we have to be careful before applying generalities to the term arguido.
I have always had a problem with the British interpretation of the Portuguese word arguido. It has become widely accepted that it means official suspect but there is much more to it. A better definition would be 'defendant'.
Someone suggested earlier that it is the equivalent in UK terms of being interviewed under caution. Arguidos are certainly cautioned as far as I understand prior to being interviewed and only then can their responses be later used in any trial but not if self-incrimitory.
I think we have to be careful before applying generalities to the term arguido.
The Portuguese wikipedia definition of arguido makes for better understanding.
https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguido
I have always had a problem with the British interpretation of the Portuguese word arguido. It has become widely accepted that it means official suspect but there is much more to it. A better definition would be 'defendant'.
Someone suggested earlier that it is the equivalent in UK terms of being interviewed under caution. Arguidos are certainly cautioned as far as I understand prior to being interviewed and only then can their responses be later used in any trial but not if self-incrimitory.
I think we have to be careful before applying generalities to the term arguido.
The Portuguese wikipedia definition of arguido makes for better understanding.
https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguido
Making Sergey Malinka an arguido didn't have to be publicly evidenced. That too was dumb.
Just as making Ricardo Rodrigues, Paulo Ribeiro and José Carlos da Silva arguidos was dumb.
Let me put this in as plain and blunt terms as I can. If you want help or information from the people of Luz, do you p**s on them first? It seems OG thinks that is the way to go.
It's a mistake the McCanns also made, IMO.
OG is NOT conducting an exhaustive investigation. That should have started with the T9. Epic fail.
I have no confidence that OG could organise a p**s-up in a brewery. That's IMO.
I read today that the PJ didn't even have to have evidence against you to become an arguido just suspicion was enough.
Very true Robbie, I think the whole idea behind arguido status is to do two things.But I suppose even with a suspicion tell would need to tell the arguido why they are suspicious.
1. To alert an individual that they are a suspect and that the police could well take things further.
2. It is a protection given to a suspected person prior to being formally interviewed and potentially charged with a crime.
But I suppose even with a suspicion tell would need to tell the arguido why they are suspicious.
Making Sergey Malinka an arguido didn't have to be publicly evidenced. That too was dumb.
Just as making Ricardo Rodrigues, Paulo Ribeiro and José Carlos da Silva arguidos was dumb.
Let me put this in as plain and blunt terms as I can. If you want help or information from the people of Luz, do you p**s on them first? It seems OG thinks that is the way to go.
It's a mistake the McCanns also made, IMO.
OG is NOT conducting an exhaustive investigation. That should have started with the T9. Epic fail.
I have no confidence that OG could organise a p**s-up in a brewery. That's IMO.
158
It may help to work backwards with some of this.
The Met have no authority in Portugal. They are merely civilians there.
Any "work" carried out has to be effected by the Portuguese and therefore effected in accordance with Portuguese Law and legal procedures.
If anyone has arguido status conferred on them it will be as a result of:
1 The person concerned asking for it.
2 The PP demanding it.
The arguido is entitled to see any evidence the Inquiry has against them and what potential charges will be.
As an arguido can lie with impunity and OG ostensibly is to discover the truth the two would appear potentially to be at cross puposes.
Should evidence appear that a crime was committed in Portugal and will be tried in Portugal then Portuguese procedures have to be followed otherwise the case can be nullified.
I often wonder whether the Portuguese reopened the file merely to allow OG some degree of movement. With a closed file they [the Met] would be jiggered when it came to having people questioned.
All IMO of course
I think you raise a very important point ie The Met have no authority in Portugal. They are merely civilians there.Same for the PJ when they went to England to do the rogatory interviews.