Repetition of erroneous conclusions whatever one's motivation or justification may very well constitute dissemination of libel as far as British Courts are concerned.
However, whatever the legal position may be there must surely be an honourable position with regard to reiterating the content of a flawed and mistaken thesis.
Quite often members sail very close to the wind while discussing an individual's train of thought at a particular time ... it is also worth remembering that as the case co-ordinator Goncalo Amaral may very well have been directing the course the investigation was taking.
The misdirection of which may very well have been at least one of the issues which obliged his removal from the case.
Who said it is a flawed and mistaken thesis.
It has not been disproved.
BTW, this post is not goading.
Who said it is a flawed and mistaken thesis.
It has not been disproved.
BTW, this post is not goading.
Who said it is a flawed and mistaken thesis.
It has not been disproved.
BTW, this post is not goading.
Calpol is not a sedative
Children cannot die from falling off a sofa
Disproved very easily
Hmmm ... so you believe Mr Amaral's thesis has not been disproved when considering subsequent evidence such as the final FSS report ...
However a belief is one thing, how you choose to express it another.
The report was inconclusive.
Please keep to the facts.
BTW, this post is not goading.
Amaral didn't keep to the facts
The report was inconclusive.
Please keep to the facts.
BTW, this post is not goading.
You cannot disprove that.
You never have.
BTW, this post is not goading.
It is apparent that Goncalo Amaral either failed to understand the DNA results, or that he chose to disregard them, but there is absolutely no reason why anyone should perpetuate that error given that they have been subject to so much discussion and explanation since their release into the public domain.
**snip
In an e-mail dated 3 September 2007, John Lowe of the major incidents team of the Forensic Science Service (FSS) said it was impossible to conclude whether the material taken from the car came from Madeleine.
The e-mail was translated into Portuguese the following day and four days later Portuguese detectives named the McCanns arguidos - formal suspects - citing DNA evidence as grounds for their suspicions.
In his message to Det Supt Stuart Prior, head of the British side of the inquiry, Mr Lowe said a sample from the boot of the McCanns' hire car, which they rented 24 days after Madeleine went missing, contained 15 out of 19 of her DNA components.
But he cautioned that this result - based on the controversial "low copy number" DNA analysis technique which uses very small samples - was "too complex for meaningful interpretation or inclusion".
The expert said the components of the missing girl's DNA profile were not unique to her - in fact some were present among FSS scientists, including himself.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7541810.stm
Repetition of erroneous conclusions whatever one's motivation or justification may very well constitute dissemination of libel as far as British Courts are concerned.
However, whatever the legal position may be there must surely be an honourable position with regard to reiterating the content of a flawed and mistaken thesis.
Quite often members sail very close to the wind while discussing an individual's train of thought at a particular time ... it is also worth remembering that as the case co-ordinator Goncalo Amaral may very well have been directing the course the investigation was taking.
The misdirection of which may very well have been at least one of the issues which obliged his removal from the case.
Repetition of erroneous conclusions whatever one's motivation or justification may very well constitute dissemination of libel as far as British Courts are concerned.
However, whatever the legal position may be there must surely be an honourable position with regard to reiterating the content of a flawed and mistaken thesis.
Quite often members sail very close to the wind while discussing an individual's train of thought at a particular time ... it is also worth remembering that as the case co-ordinator Goncalo Amaral may very well have been directing the course the investigation was taking.
The misdirection of which may very well have been at least one of the issues which obliged his removal from the case.
Calpol is not a sedative
Children cannot die from falling off a sofa
Disproved very easily
It is out of date news now and any intelligent person realises amaral got most of the important points wrong
Unfortunately some still think his summation of the evidence is correct
Which side of the sofa?
You seem very fond of the word 'intelligence'. Have we had your definition as a matter of interest?
I can speak only for myself, you will need to ask the 'some' the reasons why they hold their alleged views.
You explain how a child could die from falling off a sofa
The whole idea is ridiculous
Why?
I have not agreed with the report or with Amaral's conclusions so I fail to see what the problem is. If copying part of the official files onto this thread constitutes libel then so does the copying of chunks of the book onto another thread. There's no difference as far as I can see.
Amaral's book matched the findings and conclusions of the investigation just before he was moved off the case, therefore it can't really be judged in the light of what happened later. Had the court case not occurred it would be old out of date news by now.
Because of the mechanism of death from a head injury
Because it is not on record as happening before anywhere in the world...ever
A) why only a head injury?
B) do you have access to all the worlds records?
If you need a definition then you are lacking
I know exactly why some hold their views
Like amaral they do not understand the evidence
We are talking of amarals thesis
Deaths are reported in newspapers
If you fail to see the dichotomy that is your concern. The files cannot be considered libellous as they stand in small part as a record of events although it must be remembered they are an incomplete record and therefore not to be relied upon. It is misinterpretation of the files whether stated or implied that is problematic regarding defamation.
He isn't a medical doctor so his terminology is not medical
Not all deaths.
Some light reading...
https://suesspiciousminds.com/2016/05/16/low-level-falls-and-head-injuries/ (https://suesspiciousminds.com/2016/05/16/low-level-falls-and-head-injuries/)
nothing new here...its about parents trying to pass of head injuries caused by a parent as a low level fall......low level falls rarely cause an serious problem...if they do its a subdural haematoma which rarely results in death ...but when it does death is of the order of 24 hrs later...we have been through all this before ...amarals thesis does not hold water...thats why SY are looking for an abductor
nothing new here...its about parents trying to pass of head injuries caused by a parent as a low level fall......low level falls rarely cause an serious problem...if they do its a subdural haematoma which rarely results in death ...but when it does death is of the order of 24 hrs later...we have been through all this before ...amarals thesis does not hold water...thats why SY are looking for an abductor
I think you are struggling here, though the 24 hours leads to some interesting thoughts.
no you are ...24 hours leads to the abandonment of all the theories held for 9 years and more speculation to desperately try and make the impossible seem possible
You just introduced the 24 hours. What if Madeliene had had a nasty bang on the head the day before...?
You just introduced the 24 hours. What if Madeliene had had a nasty bang on the head the day before...?
You just introduced the 24 hours. What if Madeliene had had a nasty bang on the head the day before...?
so are you abandoning amarals theory
We have never seen the crèche accident records sheets. I wonder if any exist?
I've never been tied to any particular theory unlike some.Sounds like you have not been able to make an informed judgement
Sounds like you have not been able to make an informed judgement
Based on the facts I have
Based on the facts there isn't enough information to make a fixed judgement. Beliefs, hopes and desires, yes.
You explain how a child could die from falling off a sofa
The whole idea is ridiculous
Very easily actually since most villas in Portugal have tiled floors.Your case shows how a fall would not have caused death
I recall an incident when my own child fell over a deckchair and landed on his head on the tiles, a football sized bump followed. It could have been oh so worse heaven forbid.
Your case shows how a fall would not have caused death
A really bad fall and nothing more than a bruise
Falls like this do not cause death
If they did there would be a lot of dead children
Stop pontificating davel, such a fall could be fatal.
A simple bump on the head can kill you.
http://scienceblogs.com/whitecoatunderground/2009/03/18/a-simple-bump-on-the-head-can/
Examples of deaths following fall onto a tiled floor.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/toddler-died-sleep-after-slipping-6982555
Second one child died the following day
We have seen and discussed all these. Before
I shall continue to pontificate from a position of knowledge
http://yourhealth.asiaone.com/content/baby-dies-after-fall
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3284447/Five-month-old-baby-girl-died-brain-bleed-week-mother-dropped-slipped-tiled-floor-Santa-s-grotto.html
You stated that a child cannot die from a fall onto a floor, that is untrue. I won't warn you again about this.
Stop pontificating davel, such a fall could be fatal.
A simple bump on the head can kill you.
http://scienceblogs.com/whitecoatunderground/2009/03/18/a-simple-bump-on-the-head-can/
Examples of deaths following fall onto a tiled floor.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/toddler-died-sleep-after-slipping-6982555k
http://yourhealth.asiaone.com/content/baby-dies-after-fall
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3284447/Five-month-old-baby-girl-died-brain-bleed-week-mother-dropped-slipped-tiled-floor-Santa-s-grotto.html
We should also be careful when making libellous post making assumptions of reasons why GA was removed from the case
You stated that a child cannot die from a fall onto a floor, that is untrue. I won't warn you again about this.
I stated that a child could not die from a fall from a sofa
Any fall would take 24 hrs for death
The first case you quoted the cause of death was not established
We have been through all this before
Amarals theory does not hold water
What I have said is a child cannot die from a fall from a sofa
Death would take approx 24 hrs
This means Amarals theory does not hold water
Death could occur within hours as has been seen from many actual cases. Amaral's theory was entirely possible.
Death could occur within hours as has been seen from many actual cases.
So the injury could not have happened between 8.30 and 10
There is just not enough time for the intracranial pressure to build up to cause blockage of the Foramen Magnum
Which is. What causes death in thes cases
Amaral's unfounded guesswork was a disgrace.
This has been gone through many times before and you are still not listening.
Metaphorically of course.
It wasn't just Amaral ferryman..
Try not to imply it was.
Death from a subdural haematoma could not have occurred from an injury between 8.30and10.30
Fact
Amarals thesis does not hold water
Death could occur within hours as has been seen from many actual cases. Amaral's theory was entirely possible.
AbsenceI don't understand the comment. It's a well-known fact that the parents were away from their kids during the evening on the night of the disappearance and previous nights. Why would not being there when she banged her head and died be potentially considered any more negligent that not being there when she was abducted by a paedophile?
I don't understand the comment. It's a well-known fact that the parents were away from their kids during the evening on the night of the disappearance and previous nights. Why would not being there when she banged her head and died be potentially considered any more negligent that not being there when she was abducted by a paedophile?
What a wierd questionNo, that's exactly my point. You seem to have misunderstood it. Never mind.
Absence in the face of an accident case you forgot
Is there a law that says parents are not liable when leaving kids alone if a paedo took them? Honestly
No, that's exactly my point. You seem to have misunderstood it. Never mind.Do extrapolate for us thickos
Might I recommend to you Chapter 21 of his book where Mr Amaral makes numerous assumptions of his own as to the reasons behind his dismissal ~ some of them quite extraordinary.
It has been explained to your before, Madeleine could have easily sustained an injury prior to May the 3rd, or earlier that day.
It was me months ago who first mentioned the possibility of a subdural haematoma.
Do you not remember that ?
You were also keen to dismiss that then.
The basic treatise of accidental death remains on the table.
It has already been acknowledged Amaral did not get everything right.
For nine years posters have accepted death beteween 9.30 and 10 from ahead injury was possible and i have shown it isn't.
The fact you now want to suggest an earlier head injury shows you accept this. An earlier head injury raises further questions...when...and what is the evidence for it
I have shown that death due to a head injury between 9.30 and 10 is impossible...that's why you have come up with an alternative
I have shown that death due to a head injury between 9.30 and 10 is impossible...that's why you have come up with an alternative
Why do you have this pre-occupation for between 9.30 and 10 pm ?
and why such denial about how a child couldnt die of a head injury they do everyday.... and sometimes instant too
Why do you have this pre-occupation for between 9.30 and 10 pm ?
because thats when amaral says it happened and thats what we are discussing
because thats when amaral says it happened and thats what we are discussing
I suppose he could have been out by a couple of hours.
It has already been stated that Amaral did not get everything right and that 'sceptics' as they are called, do not agree with everything he says.
so again you accept he got this wrong
it would have to be more than a couple of hours...the whole point is taht maddie did not suffer a head injury and die whilst the mccanns were at the tapas......
Accidental death could be the result of different scenarios.
We know that already.
As no one known is in full possession of the facts then any suggested solution is just a thesis.
For reference purposes.
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/child-protection-system/case-reviews/2015/
amaral does not talk about a thesis...he says maddie died in the apartment...he states opinion as fact
I suppose he could have been out by a couple of hours.
i dont understand why davel thinks children cant die from hitting their heads right away
no relevance at all
That and trapped and suffocated, broken neck etc...drowning/near drowning etc
Read through the cases.
Wrong.
a 17 yr old girl hanged herself
i dont understand why davel thinks children cant die from hitting their heads right away
That and trapped and suffocated, broken neck etc...
it is not wrong...it is totally correct
The book is written as a thesis, a possible solution based on the investigation.
cite
Not a medical journal! Yahoo answers says this:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080718085927AAlgEHJ
Can you comment Dave? You claim to be a doctor? Am I right?
never claimed to be a doctor ...but.....
don't take any notice of these martial arts experts on yahoo forums......can the one inch punch cause instant death...no
a blow to the temple can cause damage to the meningeal artery...again bleeding causing death eventually but not instant
Do extrapolate for us thickosYou have given as a reason for a cover up "absence". We know they were absent. There was no cover up of the fact that they left their kids alone. Whatever the cause of death / disappearance, they as supposedly negligent parents would potentially face the same censure / punishment. So, back to my question: why the need for a cover-up?
Thesis;
A statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/thesis
Gerry McCann used the word outside the court;
“Over last two days we have heard a lot about Amaral’s thesis that Madeleine is dead,” he told reporters. “but we have also heard that there is absolutely no evidence to support that thesis.
“A thesis without evidence is meaningless – and that is what we are here to discuss,” he said.
Of course the McCanns also had a thesis without evidence;
Portugal’s leading criminologist Francisco Moita Flores told the court that the abduction theory pushed by the McCanns should have been dismissed immediately as it was “totally implausible”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/6983382/Gerry-McCann-rejects-claims-his-daughter-Madeleine-is-dead.html
I used to do martial arts for quite some time, so I know the 1 inch punch is more of an exhibition move. There are strikes however that are intended to kill. Like hitting someone under the chin with the palm and following through in an uppercut motion. The idea is to knock the opponent of their feet and they hit the back of their head on the floor when they fall over. I think you make a good point though regarding the length of time it usually takes for death to occur. However I assume the higher the height a child fell, the more instantaneous death may be likely to be...
Purely hypothetically - a cause of death might have been so shocking and damaging to reputation that 'neglect' was the lesser of two evils.
I agree, but can you add any detail to the hypothesis that makes sense?
Not that has any chance of being published 8(0(*
I did wado ryu karate
Have a friend who got to 2nd Dan
Trained in Japan at some point
Still just nuts everyone as first option
8((()*/ If a tragic fall happened it would lead to something else for a cover up of this scale. To think you would make someone disappear over a tragic accident is folly. The investigation starts from Madeleine's last sighting at 5:30 on 3 May not 8:30.
True. A simple headbutt does the job. IMO a karate man vs a kickboxer/mma man looses nearly everytime...
Yep the clock starts ticking at 5.30. Hypothetically what kind of accident could possibly explain the timeframe? A blow to the head seems unlikely as does death from calpol.. Can't imagine how a blow to the head 24hrs previously would work at all given the child would be very poorly all that day...
The skull does have its weak points. One is the “pterion”, which corresponds to what is commonly called the “temple”.
Just beneath this thin bit of skull is the middle meningeal artery, between the skull and the dura. If you get clonked in the temple, this artery can rupture. And where does that blood go? Nowhere. It can’t burst through the rigid skull, so it simply expands, pushing against the dura mater, and hence the brain, and gives you the above scenario. Clinically, the injury can be inapparent until the pressure is sufficiently high inside the skull. At first, the injured person may feel fine, but as the blood accumulates, the patient develops a headache, and rapidly becomes unconscious and dies, unless a neurosurgeon opens the skull.
So death can occur after a fall and for the most part go unnoticed, it just depends on the circumstances.
So death is not instant even with a blow to the temple...I've already explained this several posts back...the idea that maddie suffered a head injury and died whilst the mccanns were at the tapas is a non starter
She could have sustained a knock to her head at any time, it was unlikely to have occured after 8.30pm the day she disappeared.
It is unlikely this would have gone unnnoticed
One would think so but a brain swell is not noticeable. Thinking outside the curve for a moment, a knock to her head would explain the lethargy which her parents put down to tiredness. Maybe her brain swell increased as she slept, maybe she got up with a nose bleed and collapsed over the back of the settee.
Her parents come home and find her...oh shock horror what will people say...our careers are dust.
All entirely speculative of course and in my opinion a second place runner to walk...wandered...disappeared.
One would think so but a brain swell is not noticeable. Thinking outside the curve for a moment, a knock to her head would explain the lethargy which her parents put down to tiredness. Maybe her brain swell increased as she slept, maybe she got up with a nose bleed and collapsed over the back of the settee.
Her parents come home and find her...oh shock horror what will people say...our careers are dust.
All entirely speculative of course and in my opinion a second place runner to walk...wandered...disappeared.
In which case there would have been a fair amount of blood around. And why on earth would such an accident have any effect on their careers?
neglect
neglect
Do you actually know what "neglect" is, Angelo?
We need to be very careful about bandying words like "neglect" around, as by drawing a parallel between the McCanns parenting and true neglect we are in grave danger of devaluing some of what actually goes on in real cases of child neglect.
It may help to consider the following from the NSPCC website:
"Neglect is the ongoing failure to meet a child's basic needs and is the most common form of child abuse. A child may be left hungry or dirty, without adequate clothing, shelter, supervision, medical or health care. A child may be put in danger or not protected from physical or emotional harm."
That about covers it in my opinion.
If your opinion equated to Portuguese law, I guess the McCanns would have been banged up for neglect.
If the McCanns had been discovered popping out for a meal in Rothley and leaving their children home alone in an unlocked house the consequences would have been very different imo.
In England, a child-minder left a child strapped in a car for 10 hours and was acquitted of neglect.
I believe we have heard from learned Portuguese individuals already to the effect that had this been a Portuguese couple they would porobably have been prosecuted for neglect.
Maddie could have fallen off the sofa and broken her neck.
I believe we have heard from learned Portuguese individuals already to the effect that had this been a Portuguese couple they would porobably have been prosecuted for neglect.
So let's see &%+((£ they did intend to put her in danger yet anyone with the slightest titter of intelligence would know that you don't leave three toddlers alone in strange surroundings for hours on end while you go off socialising nearby. And especially so when one of the children had already complained about being left on her own.
Were they dense or just fcuking tossers?
So are accusing the Portuguese prosecutors of lying?
Is that libel?
For heavens sake do read my post again. I never mentioned prosecutors.
The Portuguese prosecutors said there was no neglect and no intent to harm.
You say different?
You really are insufferable.
8((()*/ agree he makes me want to bash my head on my desk
You really are insufferable. They did say there was neglect but insufficient to bring a prosecution against them.
Let's face it, the McCanns did neglect their children. Not many people can say they went on holiday with three children but came home with two because of their own rank stupidity and selfishness!!
Re-read what both I and John Pierre have quoted from the archiving dispatch.
Neglect was a (possible) charge ruled out by the Prosecutors.
I believe the crimes being referenced were exposure or abandonment.
If there was no evidence of either of those against the McCanns (there wasn't!) what (hypothetically) might the McCanns have been guilty of.
It seems the law considers the outcome of any crime (neglect) to be the most relevant factor in determining the severity of any crime committed.
I liken it to the drink-driving laws, whereby killing a person whilst driving under the influence attracts a prison sentence but simply driving whist drunk (with risk of causing death) only attracts a fine & ban. Same risk, different outcome & punishment.
Not to mention completely different offences.
1 Driving whilst under the influence of alcohol.
2 Causing death by careless driving while under the influence of alcohol.
Driving under the influence can attract a custodial sentence but in months rather than years.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/dangerous_driving/
Did they look after their children well on that holiday?
Yes, it's a strange legal system we have.
I watched Luke McCormick living a footballer's dream in playing at Wembley on Monday & wondered how many of the fans cheering his saves even remembered the 2 little children his actions wiped out?
If there was no evidence of either of those against the McCanns (there wasn't!) what (hypothetically) might the McCanns have been guilty of.
Depends what you mean by guilty, legally or morally?
nothing new here...its about parents trying to pass of head injuries caused by a parent as a low level fall......low level falls rarely cause an serious problem...if they do its a subdural haematoma which rarely results in death ...but when it does death is of the order of 24 hrs later...we have been through all this before ...amarals thesis does not hold water...thats why SY are looking for an abductorSo it is possible to die after a period of time from a low level fall, and it is likely the doctors there would be aware of this fact.
You just introduced the 24 hours. What if Madeliene had had a nasty bang on the head the day before...?Good point for Madeleine seemed very quiet that afternoon according to Kate.
when...and how come it went unnoticed...just more ridiculous speculation to desperately try to find some thing to fit the billWhat day did the kids go sailing? I always thought that sounded a risky activity for a 3-4 year old.
So if Maddie didn't die in an accidentI like this Davel is opening up for new possibilities.
What happened to her
Stephen did not conclude there was a body in the Scenic. The DNA found does not prove a body. In summary, no proof of a body.Same link but in the quote part "In an e-mail dated 3 September 2007, John Lowe of the major incidents team of the Forensic Science Service (FSS) said it was impossible to conclude whether the material taken from the car came from Madeleine." Goncalo had already seen the amount of fluid that had drained from the car, so he knew there had been a body but they could not tell who it was.
Same link but in the quote part "In an e-mail dated 3 September 2007, John Lowe of the major incidents team of the Forensic Science Service (FSS) said it was impossible to conclude whether the material taken from the car came from Madeleine." Goncalo had already seen the amount of fluid that had drained from the car, so he knew there had been a body but they could not tell who it was.
Are you saying CA was entirely wrong about a frozen cadaver being in the boot of the Scenic at any stage?
The forensics in this case are of extremely low value and cannot prove anything one way or another. Gonçalo's frozen cadaver theory is just that, a theory, and whats more, a theory based on little or no evidence at all. In a nutshell, worthless!But my point John is that we wouldn't all be saying it was worthless if the DNA results had come back positive confirmation it was Madeleine.
But my point John is that we wouldn't all be saying it was worthless if the DNA results had come back positive confirmation it was Madeleine.
Same link but in the quote part "In an e-mail dated 3 September 2007, John Lowe of the major incidents team of the Forensic Science Service (FSS) said it was impossible to conclude whether the material taken from the car came from Madeleine." Goncalo had already seen the amount of fluid that had drained from the car, so he knew there had been a body but they could not tell who it was.
Are you saying CA was entirely wrong about a frozen cadaver being in the boot of the Scenic at any stage?
Would you say the same as you did before?
What on earth led you to the conclusion that he'd seen anything whatsoever, let alone fluid that had drained from the car?It was Goncalo that came to the conclusion not me. They had seen what had dripped from the boot of the car when it was parked up somewhere but that other intelligence led him to state there had been a frozen cadaver in the car. There can't be any doubt that that was his conclusion.He then combined that with the Eddie alert on the boot of the car, and Keela finding blood in the boot of the Scenic. There was something found (was it just swabbed), and as you say "there was no way of telling who that molecule or two of blood may have belonged to."
There doesn't appear to have been anything to "see" in the first place.
Keela froze, which was her alert to blood (assuming that she is 100% reliable). OK. But there was no forensic corroboration. Assuming that she was correct, there was no way of telling who that molecule or two of blood may have belonged to.
But my point John is that we wouldn't all be saying it was worthless if the DNA results had come back positive confirmation it was Madeleine.
It was Goncalo that came to the conclusion not me. They had seen what had dripped from the boot of the car when it was parked up somewhere but that other intelligence led him to state there had been a frozen cadaver in the car. There can't be any doubt that that was his conclusion.He then combined that with the Eddie alert on the booth of the car, and Keela finding blood in the boot of the Scenic. There was something found (was it just swabbed), and as you say "there was no way of telling who that molecule or two of blood may have belonged to."
So would GA have to consider that the cadaver he thought was Madeleine's could be someone else? Would he have to consider he was wrong about who the cadaver belonged to, based on the evidence?
Rob, you said: "They had seen what had dripped from the boot of the car when it was parked up somewhere but that other intelligence led him to state there had been a frozen cadaver in the car."I saw that quote the other day. I'll try and locate it again,
Who had seen what dripping from the car? And where would that be in the files?
Good point for Madeleine seemed very quiet that afternoon according to Kate.After her tea.
After her tea.I think we need to find the actual statement by Kate saying Madeleine was slow and needed lifting. To me it seemed that Madeleine was beginning to come down with something then.
Was something introduced into her meal or drink to make her sleepy? IMO this abduction was carefully planned and giving M a sleeping draft could point to certain people maybe.
I think we need to find the actual statement by Kate saying Madeleine was slow and needed lifting. To me it seemed that Madeleine was beginning to come down with something then.
She'd been out in the sun for most of the day and the sea air on the sailing trip would have made her tired. No big mystery there.
Agree with that, activities of the day not automatically being drugged! Wonder why kate just didnt think that.But with the earlier discussion on subdural bleeding could it be something like that making a slow appearance?
And theres no need to "find" the actual statement as its been repeated in kates book and plenty of tv videos though iirc only in recent years never before
But with the earlier discussion on subdural bleeding could it be something like that making a slow appearance?
She'd been out in the sun for most of the day and the sea air on the sailing trip would have made her tired. No big mystery there.There could be more to it if she received a blow to the head out sailing. I think we need to look at what is said about this venture, for of all the things a 4 year old could do on a windy day it seems rather risky to me.
There could be more to it if she received a blow to the head out sailing. I think we need to look at what is said about this venture, for of all the things a 4 year old could do on a windy day it seems rather risky to me.searching for "sailing" on the forum I came across this recent entry http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7311.msg338974#msg338974.. OK it is a few years earlier and not in PDL AFAIK but sometimes these practices could reoccur.
At Mark Warner, the BBC reporter was asked to accompany and supervise young children on a sailing trip without enough safety helmets for all the children, and take young children into the water without any assessment of her swimming ability.
Employee Alice Standley accompanied the children during this sailing trip. Three children at a time would travel with each infant educator.There is no statement from her.
Employee Chris Unswork transported the children, in a red amphibious dinghy, to the embarkation and a few minutes later, would return them to the beach and then pick up the remaining children.No statement from Chris Unswork either.
- On the first two days the children played and did activities in the sand. On the Thursday they went sailing next to the beach.Nothing about wearing helmets there.
- On that day they sailed in a small yellow "catamaran";
- Alice Standley accompanied the children on the route and on the boat. Three children sailed with her at one time;
- Chris Unswork transported the children in a red amphibious boat (life-saving boat) until the boat reached the open sea, and, a few minutes later, returned them to the beach to pick up three other children from the group;
- All said that the children did not meet anyone else during their time at the beach, nor during the trip to it.
- All said that they saw no-one suspicious watching the children nor in the vicinity.
- Catriona said she noticed nothing abnormal [unusual] along the route either when going to the beach or when returning to the resort area.
I never noted anything strange in Madeleine's comportment during the time I stayed with her. There was one occasion, on Thursday, 3rd of May 2007, around 10H30 in the morning, where she cried at the launch of the yellow safety boat in the ocean where all the children were sailing. She was scared and fearful and cried on my lap "I am scared, I am scared." We only used the launches to transport the children to the small yellow boats. When we returned to the other boat she was happy again. She sailed in the small boat and even though some children had the opportunity to return to the port, she stayed for a second time as she appeared to be having a good time. Jane Tanner's daughter also took part in my group and together they would play. Apart from being a happy child in the club, she always seemed very content when she saw her parents. Madeleine did not demonstrate any fear with the return launch to land.Some crying??? Sailing in the morning Thursday 3rd 10:30 - 11:00 AM.
If she had had an unreported / unnoticed head injury, how would that fit in with the TdA / Amaral theory? And what would be a logical reason for just about everyone under the sun (members of T9, particularly the parents, but not only; as well as governmental agencies of all sorts) covering up for the consequences of an unfortunate accident that had taken place much earlier in the day?Just so I understand your complex question properly:
If she had had an unreported / unnoticed head injury, how would that fit in with the TdA / Amaral theory? And what would be a logical reason for just about everyone under the sun (members of T9, particularly the parents, but not only; as well as governmental agencies of all sorts) covering up for the consequences of an unfortunate accident that had taken place much earlier in the day?If there were two accidents in the same day and neither party knows about other one they would both feel they are to blame, but they are not fully to blame. They don't know that, so they both set out to cover-up (like the two employees that might have known about an accident just don't give statements, and so on. And the McCann's may or may not be aware of any of these accidents so the parents are not taking particular notice of the onset of something subtle like a brain bleed.
If there were two accidents in the same day and neither party knows about other one they would both feel they are to blame, but they are not fully to blame. They don't know that, so they both set out to cover-up (like the two employees that might have known about an accident just don't give statements, and so on. And the McCann's may or may not be aware of any of these accidents so the parents are not taking particular notice of the onset of something subtle like a brain bleed.
It is a possible scenario and it can't be ruled out ATM.
That would require two medics to not notice unusual symptoms in their own child prior to her disappearance, as well as however many people would have failed to report an incident during the day.We would need someone with a medical background to tell us what could happen, but as a kid one of my friends died or nearly died of a brain bleed and I think it is fairly painless.
If she had had an accident ealier in the day and had been screaming in pain, I doubt that this would have passed unnoticed. If she was naturally subdued due to a headache later in the day as a result of an accident, the idea that sedatives would have been necessary to further subdue her while they went out to dinner seems to fall flat.
We would need someone with a medical background to tell us what could happen, but as a kid one of my friends died or nearly died of a brain bleed and I think it is fairly painless.
There could be more to it if she received a blow to the head out sailing. I think we need to look at what is said about this venture, for of all the things a 4 year old could do on a windy day it seems rather risky to me.
Had that occurred to the extent that it had caused a subdural hematoma then without exception there would have been bruising to the head or a bump which would have been visible.
It wouldn't have been visible under the hair.
There is a distinct lack of reference to an accident records book at the crèche.
I agree, we can pretty much rule it out. In any event if Madeleine had had a bump while out sailing she would have been the first to report it imo and that doesn't appear to have occurred.
Did Goncalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
Yes.
He mangled and misrepresented Harrison (out of all recognition)
He misinterpreted the reactions of the dogs (not even evidence, but try telling Amaral that).
He relied, almost exclusively, on the discredited and disgraceful interim report of Almeida.
He didn't so much ignore the Prosecutors (because they wrote his report after Amaral wrote his book) but certainly diametrically contradicted the conclusions of the Prosecutors.
Who would know better?
Amaral?
Or the Prosecutors?
Tough one ...
I think Amaral had a better grasp on the basic facts than those who came after him. Understabdable as he was there from day 1.
The Ministry of Justice based most of it's conclusion on the Final Report delivered on 30th June 2008 and written by Joao Carlos on 20th June. Reading that report mistakes immediately become apparent. My comments are in brackets.
According to the Time and Place, the facts occurred on the day 3 of May of 2007, in a temporal hiatus, understood to be between 21H05 and 22H00 (being certain that after 17H30, only GERALD and KATE had contact with MADELEINE) at the resort named 'Ocean Club',
[]The report completely ignores the sighting of Madeleine at around 6.30pm.]
The trip from the airport to the place of Luz was done in a mini bus, provided by the resort management company 'Mark Warner'.
[No, it was a private taxi, booked by Gerry McCann.]
This is a group where seven of the the report. elements are medics,
[Wrong; six were medics.]
So the Ministry of Justice were given a report where basic facts were incorrect. They returned their verdict on 21st July, three weeks the PJ report was written.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
I agree, we can pretty much rule it out. In any event if Madeleine had had a bump while out sailing she would have been the first to report it imo and that doesn't appear to have occurred.John I don't often disagree with you but that seems to be pure speculation. We haven't seen the accident register and the two statements from the people taking the kids sailing so we don't know enough, so nothing can be ruled out.
John I don't often disagree with you but that seems to be pure speculation. We haven't seen the accident register and the two statements from the people taking the kids sailing so we don't know enough, so nothing can be ruled out.There is no mention of Madeleine being tired in Kate's statement of 4 May 2007.
Did he misinterpret the evidence? -Yes because he didn't get the evidence to show that "the accident" hadn't been caused in a sailing accident. He just thought the demise of Madeleine was caused by the parents. He hadn't included all the options, and ignored Kate's description of Madeleine being sluggish that afternoon.
There is no mention of Madeleine being tired in Kate's statement of 4 May 2007.I know she has said it many times, in various places, and at the time that I heard it I didn't record the location, but we need to know if it was mentioned to the investigation early enough for them to have taken action on it.
There is no mention of Madeleine being tired in Kate's statement of 4 May 2007.She mentions the sailing incident though:
Thursday, Madeleine and the other children went sailing at the beach five minutes on foot from the club, for an hour, organised by the resort itself. The supervision and planning were the responsibility of the club. The interviewee and her husband were not present. She never noticed any strange behaviour during these recent days which could explain the disappearance.She did alert them to the fact that "the supervision and planning were the responsibility of the club" but Goncalo didn't follow that up by checking the accident register nor taking statements from all involved. Nor asking specific questions regarding the period afterward.
She never noticed any strange behaviour during these recent days which could explain the disappearance.She is talking about major strange behaviours not things at the level of Madeleine's tiredness.
There is no mention of Madeleine being tired in Kate's statement of 4 May 2007.Was that a statement or just notes of an interview?
I think Amaral had a better grasp on the basic facts than those who came after him. Understabdable as he was there from day 1.
The Ministry of Justice based most of it's conclusion on the Final Report delivered on 30th June 2008 and written by Joao Carlos on 20th June. Reading that report mistakes immediately become apparent. My comments are in brackets.
According to the Time and Place, the facts occurred on the day 3 of May of 2007, in a temporal hiatus, understood to be between 21H05 and 22H00 (being certain that after 17H30, only GERALD and KATE had contact with MADELEINE) at the resort named 'Ocean Club',
[]The report completely ignores the sighting of Madeleine at around 6.30pm.]
The trip from the airport to the place of Luz was done in a mini bus, provided by the resort management company 'Mark Warner'.
[No, it was a private taxi, booked by Gerry McCann.]
This is a group where seven of the the report. elements are medics,
[Wrong; six were medics.]
So the Ministry of Justice were given a report where basic facts were incorrect. They returned their verdict on 21st July, three weeks the PJ report was written.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
I don't totally disagree but tell us what difference that would have made?
I agree G. He got to interact with the initial police who were first on the scene, witnessed the behaviours of the tapas, perhaps made a lot of educated guesses, read the time lines ( He must have wondered at the time, as many do, why they all got together to write down what they were doing -at what time, after claiming they had a system of checking every half hour). My guess is they really did think the police were fools in Portugual. If they claimed that their system was checking every half hour- then any normal police officer would be able to speak to every individual and ask what time did you arrive at the Tapas bar- then use the 10 0'clock end time to deduct each person's time line. If person A arrived at 8.30 then their time line would be 9pm ,9.30pm and 10 pm. So there is something just not right about the whole 'having to discuss' a timeline, especially as there are more contradictions than there should be. all too confusing to peice it together to make any sense of it IMO. He worked with what information he had at that time, perhaps if he had the Gaspars statement and kew about CF things may have looked different.
Was that a statement or just notes of an interview?The clue was in my use of the term "Kate's statement of 4 May 2007".
The clue was in my use of the term "Kate's statement of 4 May 2007".I know the page is titled as if it is a statement
58 to 65 Witness statement of Kate Marie Healy 2007.05.04
Processo 01 Pages 58 to 65
TRANSLATIONS BY ANNA ESSE /ALBYM
Kate Marie Healy's statement 04/05/07 @ 14.20pm
01_VOLUMEIa_Page_58
01_VOLUMEIa_Page_59
01_VOLUMEIa_Page_60
01_VOLUMEIa_Page_61
01_VOLUMEIa_Page_62
01_VOLUMEIa_Page_63
01_VOLUMEIa_Page_64
01_VOLUMEIa_Page_65
Kate's interview took place on the day after Madeleine's disappearance, 04/05/07 at 2.20pm.
Did Gonçalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence? You would think so but was he given a fair go?
I don't know what you mean by asking if Goncalo Amaral was given a fair go.That is exactly what I mean. Had he been given a bit more truth from the start we would not have this issue.
He coordinated two missing child cases in close proximity to each other in time and place and set about investigating the second in exactly the same manner as he did the first. Despite the fact that his investigation of the first case failed to find any evidential trace of the missing child ... although it did achieve a result in the form of a conviction.
Exactly how much of a 'fair go' did he give Madeleine McCann if according to his memoir, he had decided on the fourth of May that her abduction had been staged and her parents the guilty party?
Don't you think that unwavering certainty might have influenced his interpretation of the evidence causing him to make errors of judgement that another might not?
That is exactly what I mean. Had he been given a bit more truth from the start we would not have this issue.
I think Amaral had a better grasp on the basic facts than those who came after him. Understabdable as he was there from day 1.
Snipped
On 'Day One' he was elsewhere being made an Arguido. I find it hard to believe that such a major disaster in his own life had no effect whatsoever on his concentration on that day - or even his ensuing attitude towards the case (especially towards the mother) as time went by. We have no idea how he was affected by being made an arguido, particularly during the 'golden hour' - because he studiously avoids mentioning it - at all times.
As it was probably the worst thing to happen to him in his career to date - I believe that momentous event and the possible dire consequences would be uppermost in his mind for a very long time. It would be abnormal for it not to be IMO.
AIMHO
I think we may be talking at cross purposes here. I don't think you have understood my post at all. The problem lay not so much in what he was 'given' but in how he chose to interpret that information.Well let's say it is a combination of the both:
She mentions the sailing incident though:She did alert them to the fact that "the supervision and planning were the responsibility of the club" but Goncalo didn't follow that up by checking the accident register nor taking statements from all involved. Nor asking specific questions regarding the period afterward.
When Kate says She is talking about major strange behaviours not things at the level of Madeleine's tiredness.
I can't see where they took a decent statement from her at all.
She looked so pale and worn out, I went straight up to her and asked if she was all right. Had she been OK at the club when Ella left to go to the beach? Yes, she said, but now she was really tired and wanted me to pick her up, which I did. Ten minutes later, the five of us went back to our apartment. I was carrying Madeleine. Because she was so exhausted we skipped playtime that evening.I'm still surprised this didn't get in her early statement, for it has the hallmarks of internal haemorrhage.
Most healthy people can lose 10% to 15% of their blood supply and show minimal signs of shock. This blood loss is the equivalent of donating a pint of blood. Symptoms become more severe as more blood is lost.I.e. the symptoms are hard to pick.
Children, the elderly, and those taking certain medications may not exhibit classic signs and symptoms and medical care providers may need to maintain a higher level of suspicion when looking for internal bleeding.
Amaral didn't even understand that no incriminating inference could be drawn from the reactions of the dogs.
He didn't need to listen to anyone who came after him to grasp that basic fact.
He just needed to listen to Harrison (and even Grime).
How could Amaral conclude that Madeleine was driven anywhere dead in the Renault when the provenance of the dog-reaction was Gerry's blood?
Did Amaral ever find this fridge?
I often wonder if a search for a fridge was made, that could have stored Madeleine's body. Didn't he also say or somewhere cool, where could that be I wonder.
You would have thought as it was an important part of Amaral's theory that the McCann's kept Madeleine's body for weeks, until they are supposed to have transported her somewhere in the hire car, that we would hear more about the investigating that went into the search for a fridge or a cool place.
Wasn't Amaral, apparently, just on the brink of finding the fridge at the point he was removed from the investigation?
Sorry, but that made me laugh out loud @)(++(*
How could Amaral KNOW he was on the point of finding something if he hadn't found it?
Wasn't Amaral, apparently, just on the brink of finding the fridge at the point he was removed from the investigation?Maybe he could detect the cadaver odour without the dogs.
On 'Day One' he was elsewhere being made an Arguido. I find it hard to believe that such a major disaster in his own life had no effect whatsoever on his concentration on that day - or even his ensuing attitude towards the case (especially towards the mother) as time went by. We have no idea how he was affected by being made an arguido, particularly during the 'golden hour' - because he studiously avoids mentioning it - at all times.
As it was probably the worst thing to happen to him in his career to date - I believe that momentous event and the possible dire consequences would be uppermost in his mind for a very long time. It would be abnormal for it not to be IMO.
AIMHO
Maybe he could detect the cadaver odour without the dogs.And didn't even bother to open the door and check?
During a discussion on another thread this claim was made;
Amaral claimed
These dogs, have solved 200 case
These dogs have never been wrong
Eddie alerted to a body under a, slab of concrete in Jersey
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10278.msg496751#msg496751
I have read the whole of this thread, but the above claims aren't included. It would be interesting to discuss them, so I would like to see cites showing where the claims appear.
More recently, it's Eddie who helps to find a body buried under a flagstone at the former orphanage, Haut-de-la-Garenne, in Jersey, setting for a terrible case of paedophilia and child murder.
http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.com/2009/06/chapter-16.html#more
23.29 – The investigation uses two very special dogs that are used by the English and North American police, that have successfully solved over 200 cases
27.23 – The dogs’ reaction is revealing. These dogs have never failed in over 200 cases
joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/04/maddie-truth-of-lie-documentary.html
Davel, I see you have posted the cites but on a different thread to the request. Thank you.
wrong again...the request I saw was on this thread post 211
Hardyhaha Davel. A different thread to my request.It’s hard to keep track of your multiple cite requests.
More recently, it's Eddie who helps to find a body buried under a flagstone at the former orphanage, Haut-de-la-Garenne, in Jersey, setting for a terrible case of paedophilia and child murder.
http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.com/2009/06/chapter-16.html#more
23.29 – The investigation uses two very special dogs that are used by the English and North American police, that have successfully solved over 200 cases
27.23 – The dogs’ reaction is revealing. These dogs have never failed in over 200 cases
joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/04/maddie-truth-of-lie-documentary.html
When Amaral wrote his book in 2008 he wasn't the only one who thought Eddie was finding things at Haut de la Garenne;
Sniffer dog finds a child's remains
News | Published: Feb 25, 2008
THE remains of a child have been unearthed at a former Channel Islands children's home.
https://guernseypress.com/news/2008/02/25/sniffer-dog-finds-a-childs-remains/
More recently, it's Eddie who helps to find a body buried under a flagstone at the former orphanage, Haut-de-la-Garenne, in Jersey, setting for a terrible case of paedophilia and child murder.
http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.com/2009/06/chapter-16.html#more
23.29 – The investigation uses two very special dogs that are used by the English and North American police, that have successfully solved over 200 cases
27.23 – The dogs’ reaction is revealing. These dogs have never failed in over 200 cases
joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/04/maddie-truth-of-lie-documentary.html
He does seem to say those things quoted in the documentary. Did he write his script himself? He doesn't make those points in his book as far as I know. Grime did mention 200 cases;
In six years operational deployment in over 200 cases the dog has never alerted to meat based foodstuffs.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
Grime also said;
'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated operationally or in training.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
eddie was never involved in 200 cases according to a freedom of information report posted here ...i think it was 37...in 5 years
So was Grime a liar?
if he said that he was....but the quote you gave reads 200 case searches
No it doesn't. Read it again.
FALSE ALERTSone criminal case could involve multiple deployments of the cadaver dog. If there were 6 - 7 individual searches per case 37 cases becomes 200 searches.
'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated
operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200
criminal case searches the dog
..............perhaps he was getting a bit confused
one criminal case could involve multiple deployments of the cadaver dog. If there were 6 - 7 individual searches per case 37 cases becomes 200 searches.
correct...200 searches not 200 cases...so the dogs never solved 200 cases as amaral claimed
If you read both cites, Grime appears to have referred to both 200 cases and 200 case searches in different reports,
Interesting. This seems to confirm that when Grime refers to evidence he means evidence admissible in court.;
The dog has also been trained to identify 'dead body' scent contamination where there
is no physically retrievable evidence, due to scent adhering to pervious material such
as carpet or the upholstery in motor vehicles. Whereas there may be no retrievable
evidence for court purposes this may well assist intelligence gathering in Major Crime
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
In the Gilroy case the cadaver dog alert was just one part in a chain of circumstantial evidence.
In the McCann situation there was not a chain of circumstantial evidence.
That is the nature of a case based on circumstantial evidence, you can't build a case on just one circumstance IMO.
From your quote G-Unit
Whereas there may be no retrievable evidence for court purposes
That was the case in 2007 but not when David Gilroy was convicted of Suzanne Pilley's murder in 2012
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-17142957
From David Gilroy's family webpage
no body, no forensic evidence of any description relating to any of the strands of evidence, no witnesses – and, when properly and clearly examined, an impossibly small window of time in which to commit the crime in the way described by the prosecution and cover it up – all leaving no trace of anything which remotely begins to stand up to a test of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ .
He of course is still in jail for murder.
http://www.gilroyfamily.info/case.asp
I have only ever argued that any police investigation would keep the dog alerts in mind as possible clues because the idea that the police would ignore them because no forensics were found isn't feasible imo.
In the Gilroy case dog alerts became part of a very complex body of circumstantial evidence.
I have only ever argued that any police investigation would keep the dog alerts in mind as possible clues because the idea that the police would ignore them because no forensics were found isn't feasible imo.
In the Gilroy case dog alerts became part of a very complex body of circumstantial evidence.
I have never suggested the alerts be ignored.....they should be evaluate and any conclusions drawn
You said they had no value? Why would you evaluate something with no value?
They were evaluated and found to have no value.
You said they had no value? Why would you evaluate something with no value?You don't know they have no value until you evaluate them
They were evaluated and found to have no value.
They were evaluated and found to have no value.
Who carried it out, and when were the alerts in Praia Da Luz evaluated Eleanor?
Who carried it out, and when were the alerts in Praia Da Luz evaluated Eleanor?
SY reviewed the evidence and decided Maddie could still be alive so obviously do not think the alerts confirm Maddie's death
Which is a possible reason the case is at an impasse, imo.
SY reviewed the evidence and decided Maddie could still be alive so obviously do not think the alerts confirm Maddie's death
They also decided she could be dead. They sound a little unsure to me.Are they covering their bases? Either she is dead or alive, both possible.
They also decided she could be dead. They sound a little unsure to me.Which just goes to show how much store they set by the dog alerts. “May be alive, may be dead”, one could deduce this without the dog alerts at all.
Which just goes to show how much store they set by the dog alerts. “May be alive, may be dead”, one could deduce this without the dog alerts at all.
Which just goes to show how much store they set by the dog alerts. “May be alive, may be dead”, one could deduce this without the dog alerts at all.
Davel seemed to think that OG said Madeleine might be alive meant that they had dismissed the dog alerts. I simply reminded him that they also said she might be dead. There's also the digging, of course.
Davel seemed to think that OG said Madeleine might be alive meant that they had dismissed the dog alerts. I simply reminded him that they also said she might be dead. There's also the digging, of course.
Are they covering their bases? Either she is dead or alive, both possible.
The fact they consider she msy be alive confirms they are willing to ignore the alerts..... Whether the dogs alerted or not she may be dead[/color]
The fact they consider she msy be alive confirms they are willing to ignore the alerts..... Whether the dogs alerted or not she may be dead
The digging found No Remains.
It's not a case of ignoring anything, it's a case of following two different and possible hypotheses.
1. The alerts weren't connected to Madeleine therefore she left 5A alive.
2. The alerts were connected to Madeleine, therefore she was dead when she left 5A.
Do we know whether the dogs that Scotland Yard took to Portugal alerted anywhere Eleanor? I haven't read that they did, or not.
There is no independant news which states why the dogs were brought there OR why that particular spot was targeted, however, that fact that they used dogs is a sign that they do trust their 'sniffing' alerts. ^*&&
I would be inclined to believe these were maybe cadaver dogs.
There is no independant news which states why the dogs were brought there OR why that particular spot was targeted, however, that fact that they used dogs is a sign that they do trust their 'sniffing' alerts. ^*&&
I would be inclined to believe these were maybe cadaver dogs.
Do we know whether the dogs that Scotland Yard took to Portugal alerted anywhere Eleanor? I haven't read that they did, or not.
They didn't find any remains, so probably not. And two Cadaver dogs were used in conjunction on this occasion, as is standard practice, apparently.
Thank you Eleanor, that is my reading of it too. I am glad you put "apparently" at the end of the second sentence as it doesn't appear to be standard practice, although it does happen. All IMO.
Why only two you have forgotten the third... The alerts were connected to Maddie and she died in 5a.... And was removed before cadaverine developed
Quite possibly motivated by Grime's use of a dog that was not fit for purpose.
Eddie worked on the Theresa Parker case after the McCann case in 2007 and his alerts were proven. Just so you know before spreading further myths!
Thank you Eleanor, that is my reading of it too. I am glad you put "apparently" at the end of the second sentence as it doesn't appear to be standard practice, although it does happen. All IMO.
Sadly, no one really knew what Eddie was alerting to. That is a fact.
Is it Eleanor? I believe you should have posted IMO on that one.
Sadly, no one knows what Eddie was alerting to. That is a fact.
Sadly, no one knows what Eddie was alerting to. That is a fact.
I beleive in the first judgement for the McCann's which Amaral succesfully appealed its a stated fact of what Eddie alerted to,that judgement is here somewhere.
ETA,here you go proved facts.
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
So given Keela is not a Cadaver dog and cadaver was detected that just leaves Ediie.
The proven facts are incorrectWheres that written?
Wheres that written?
Wheres that written?
Where and in what court was it proved... Do you not realise it's pure BS
I beleive in the first judgement for the McCann's which Amaral succesfully appealed its a stated fact of what Eddie alerted to,that judgement is here somewhere.
ETA,here you go proved facts.
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
So given Keela is not a Cadaver dog and cadaver was detected that just leaves Ediie.
I would have liked to see that presented In Court. But it was never going to be. Because there is No Proof. And that is a fact.
Grimes statement... Just because the Portuguese court say it's a proven fact doesn't mean it is...
In the cipriano case it was stated in the proven facts Joannas blod was found in the house... The blood was never tested for DNA...
Yes they do know. They just need to corroborate it.
It's not a case of ignoring anything, it's a case of following two different and possible hypotheses.They could have come to the same conclusions without giving the dog alerts any credence at all.
1. The alerts weren't connected to Madeleine therefore she left 5A alive.
2. The alerts were connected to Madeleine, therefore she was dead when she left 5A.
Surely there would have been no alerts if the body was removed immediately?Why not?
It was shown in a court the fact you won't recognise it, is plain to see.
Surely there would have been no alerts if the body was removed immediately?
you are making the assumption that the alerts could only have been due to maddies cadaver...that is a gross and incorrect assumtion
I was trying to maje sense of what you said;
The alerts were connected to Maddie and she died in 5a.... And was removed before cadaverine developed
The alerts to cadaver seem to be a proven fact in the portuguese court...so your claim should carry a caveat.
as they have never been proven to be a fact in any court this raises question about the portuguese justice system. Portugal seems to accept facts a s proven without any evidence....no wonder the mccanns fled
I thought the McCanns and supporters were at pains to say that they didn't flee Portugal but had reached the end of their rental agreement in the villa, thank you for clarifying that they fled.
It's quite possible Maddie died... Was removed immediately ...and yet the dogs still alert... But not to Maddie
Kate McCann suggested something similar, I believe;
Supposing she had been killed – and we think this extremely unlikely – she must have been taken out of the apartment within minutes. [madeleine]
It's quite possible Maddie died... Was removed immediately ...and yet the dogs still alert... But not to MaddieAt each step there are multiple possibilities.
Sadly, no one knows what Eddie was alerting to. That is a fact.
That's not.. And has never been my view... I believe they fled in fear of a miscarriage of justice
In my view it was, reasonable to fear they would be arrested even though innocent... We wont agree so it's pointless arguing over it
How ever would there have been a misscarage of justice....
they were totally surrounded by legal protection...
IMO the only thing that would have kept them there is ...
If there was something beyond legal help etc etc...that PJ could use...or where getting close to...
they were practically untouchable .....so why fear a misscarage of justice....
if they were telling the truth ......what would they have to fear...
http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2016/04/ex-british-diplomat-craig-murray-speaks.html
Ex British Diplomat Craig Murray Speaks On The McCanns
I am going to come straight out with this. British diplomatic staff were under direct instruction to support the McCanns far beyond the usual and to put pressure on the Portuguese authorities over the case. I have direct information that more than one of those diplomatic staff found the McCanns less than convincing and their stories inconsistent. Embassy staff were perturbed to be ordered that British authorities were to be present at every contact between the McCanns and Portuguese police.
In my view it was, reasonable to fear they would be arrested even though innocent... We wont agree so it's pointless arguing over it
Fair enough....
but you seem to think then... they had reasonable evidence ...to arrest them..
Even though they were drowning in legal and diplomatic help....
and a watching world.....
I think they thought they had evidence... They misunderstood.. Imo
so it would have been inadmissible evidence...if they misunderstood it ...The evidence they misunderstood was accepted by the court as a proven fact
they had the best legal team money could buy...etc etc etc...
no excuse for the mccs to flee....
The evidence they misunderstood was accepted by the court as a proven fact
The alerts to cadaver seem to be a proven fact in the portuguese court...so your claim should carry a caveat.
as they have never been proven to be a fact in any court this raises question about the portuguese justice system. Portugal seems to accept facts a s proven without any evidence....no wonder the mccanns fled
The judge of the first instance made the position of the court in a civil case quite clear to Gerry McCann;
GMC - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour...
Judge [interrupts] – We are not here to ascertain that, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.
Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation.
The judge of the first instance made the position of the court in a civil case quite clear to Gerry McCann;The right of one person to publish lies versus the rights of others not to be lied about in other words. In Portugal liars rights are more important.
GMC - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour...
Judge [interrupts] – We are not here to ascertain that, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.
Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation.
The right of one person to publish lies versus the rights of others not to be lied about in other words. In Portugal liars rights are more important.
The right of one person to publish lies versus the rights of others not to be lied about in other words. In Portugal liars rights are more important.
But in previous ECHR judgements the veracity of the claims has been seen to be important...
As this case never came to court, nothing has been proved to be true or false.
Amaral said the 'facts' in his book were taken from the investigation. The court agreed;
It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0
So Amaral used 'facts' from the investigation. Those 'facts' have never been tested in a criminal court, so their truth or otherwise is a matter of opinion.
LOL at “mostly facts”. So the book was “mostly truthful” . My point stands. Portugal found that the right to be lied about is more important that the right to be protected from being lied about.
Amaral said the 'facts' in his book were taken from the investigation. The court agreed;
It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0
So Amaral used 'facts' from the investigation. Those 'facts' have never been tested in a criminal court, so their truth or otherwise is a matter of opinion.
But in previous ECHR judgements the veracity of the claims has been seen to be important...
read it again....it says he used mostly facts....so some of his facts were not from the investigation...as the facts have not been tested there are no proven facts. From previous ECHR cases the court will consider the evidence amaral ahs used to support his claims...and whether it is true or not
He used facts from the investigation. No-one knows if those facts are true or false. In order for the ECHR to decide they would have to investigate the case themselves and then use their own findings.
That isn't within their remit, which is why the McCann's lawyers argued so passionately that the archiving dispatch amounted to a legal judgement.
They tried from the beginning to equate the archiving dispatch to an acquittal because if someone has been acquitted by the courts no-one is allowed to say they're guilty thereafter.
The Supreme Court said it wasn't an acquittal, therefore others were allowed to express their opinions about the case.
well good to see...you accept there are two sides to the maddie case...
No. Two sides to Opinions, or interpretations there of. There is a difference. I still believe that Madeleine was Abducted, and I don't really understand why others of you can't see what I see.What exactly can you see that some others of us cannot ?
Nor do I see how Amaral so easily misinterpreted The Facts, unless it was for his own ends.
No. Two sides to Opinions, or interpretations there of. There is a difference. I still believe that Madeleine was Abducted, and I don't really understand why others of you can't see what I see.
Nor do I see how Amaral so easily misinterpreted The Facts, unless it was for his own ends.
Do you accept that Madeleine was possibly abducted by a stranger?As Conan Doyle’s character Sherlock Holmes said “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
As Conan Doyle’s character Sherlock Holmes said “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.What impossibles have you been able to eliminate?
I’d have to go with that if I’m honest but it remains to be proved doesn’t it in this case that a stranger took Mafeleine and so far no evidence of any such a thing .
What impossibles have you been able to eliminate?Abduction by beings who could not possibly have been in the vicinity.
Abduction by beings who could not possibly have been in the vicinity.But you accept that abduction is possible by those in the vicinity?
But you accept that abduction is possible by those in the vicinity?Havn't I just agreed with Conan Doyle that however improbable whatever remains must be the truth ?
Havn't I just agreed with Conan Doyle that however improbable whatever remains must be the truth ?TBH, I didn't quite understand what you were driving at. Some sceptics use that quote to mean that abduction is impossible, leaving the 'parents dunnit' as the improbable truth.
The judge of the first instance made the position of the court in a civil case quite clear to Gerry McCann;
GMC - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour...
Judge [interrupts] – We are not here to ascertain that, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.
Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation.
That is interesting.
Although dealing with an appeal and a criminal not a civil case, I think the principle of the denial of allowing presentation of evidence might very well be relevant to the libel case which the McCanns lost on appeal in Portugal and have taken to the European Court of Human Rights as a result.
Trying to present evidence and being denied the right seems to be something frowned upon by the judges of the ECHR to the extent that it seems ... “O tribunal europeu chama a atenção para algumas falhas do nosso sistema de recursos” "The European court draws attention to some flaws in our system of appeals"
Vânia Costa Ramos
Which could have lasting repercussions when considered along with those that Davel has brought to the attention of the forum.
Anyway the upshot of the Carlos Cruz case which Portugal lost in the ECHR is that proceedings will now be instituted in Portugal for a review of the case.
I presume he too had gone through the appeal process which we have been told was FINAL ... it would seem it is not.
Snip
The State decided not to appeal against the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) which gave partial reason to a complaint by former television presenter Carlos Cruz in the Casa Pia case . Following this, your lawyer will proceed with a request for review of judgement of the case in Portugal.
https://www.publico.pt/2018/09/26/sociedade/noticia/casa-pia-estado-nao-recorre-de-decisao-do-tribunal-europeu-sobre-carlos-cruz-1845344
______________________________________________________________________
You have a better grasp of this situation than I, Davel. What is your opinion?
That is interesting.
Although dealing with an appeal and a criminal not a civil case, I think the principle of the denial of allowing presentation of evidence might very well be relevant to the libel case which the McCanns lost on appeal in Portugal and have taken to the European Court of Human Rights as a result.
Trying to present evidence and being denied the right seems to be something frowned upon by the judges of the ECHR to the extent that it seems ... “O tribunal europeu chama a atenção para algumas falhas do nosso sistema de recursos” "The European court draws attention to some flaws in our system of appeals"
Vânia Costa Ramos
Which could have lasting repercussions when considered along with those that Davel has brought to the attention of the forum.
Anyway the upshot of the Carlos Cruz case which Portugal lost in the ECHR is that proceedings will now be instituted in Portugal for a review of the case.
I presume he too had gone through the appeal process which we have been told was FINAL ... it would seem it is not.
Snip
The State decided not to appeal against the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) which gave partial reason to a complaint by former television presenter Carlos Cruz in the Casa Pia case . Following this, your lawyer will proceed with a request for review of judgement of the case in Portugal.
https://www.publico.pt/2018/09/26/sociedade/noticia/casa-pia-estado-nao-recorre-de-decisao-do-tribunal-europeu-sobre-carlos-cruz-1845344
______________________________________________________________________
You have a better grasp of this situation than I, Davel. What is your opinion?
In my opinion the judge was quite correct to refuse to listen to Gerry McCann. He wanted to talk about something which had no bearing on the case her court was considering.
IMO what Gerry wanted to say about the cadaver dog should have been accepted in evidence. Whilst it was a proven fact a cadaver dog alerted in various McCann-related locations, it was not a proven fact the source of the alerts was Madeleine's cadaver - a vital point when considering libel.
The ECHR guarantees the right to a fair trial
I think the original trial was probably as fair as the McCanns were going to get. It was when the Appeal & Supreme Courts got involved & moved goalposts that it all became unfair, not least when Amaral's duty of reserve was revoked for some frivolous reason.
I see, trial was fair the subsequent appeals weren't,tis a beggar this justice lark.
IMO what Gerry wanted to say about the cadaver dog should have been accepted in evidence. Whilst it was a proven fact a cadaver dog alerted in various McCann-related locations, it was not a proven fact the source of the alerts was Madeleine's cadaver - a vital point when considering libel.
I think the original trial was probably as fair as the McCanns were going to get. It was when the Appeal & Supreme Courts got involved & moved goalposts that it all became unfair, not least when Amaral's duty of reserve was revoked for some frivolous reason.
That is interesting.
Although dealing with an appeal and a criminal not a civil case, I think the principle of the denial of allowing presentation of evidence might very well be relevant to the libel case which the McCanns lost on appeal in Portugal and have taken to the European Court of Human Rights as a result.
Trying to present evidence and being denied the right seems to be something frowned upon by the judges of the ECHR to the extent that it seems ... “O tribunal europeu chama a atenção para algumas falhas do nosso sistema de recursos” "The European court draws attention to some flaws in our system of appeals"
Vânia Costa Ramos
Which could have lasting repercussions when considered along with those that Davel has brought to the attention of the forum.
Anyway the upshot of the Carlos Cruz case which Portugal lost in the ECHR is that proceedings will now be instituted in Portugal for a review of the case.
I presume he too had gone through the appeal process which we have been told was FINAL ... it would seem it is not.
Snip
The State decided not to appeal against the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) which gave partial reason to a complaint by former television presenter Carlos Cruz in the Casa Pia case . Following this, your lawyer will proceed with a request for review of judgement of the case in Portugal.
https://www.publico.pt/2018/09/26/sociedade/noticia/casa-pia-estado-nao-recorre-de-decisao-do-tribunal-europeu-sobre-carlos-cruz-1845344
______________________________________________________________________
You have a better grasp of this situation than I, Davel. What is your opinion?
It is interesting... MY OPINION... Is
From this case it seems the SC judgement is not final... I'm happy to give my reasons to support my opinion but they have been removed
Put your cite here Davel. I am sure I will find it interesting. I didn't see your cite before so must have missed it.Ss I have said I have stated opinion which does not require a cite... The use of the words... seem.. And... may... Make it clear that I was not stating fact.
Put your cite here Davel. I am sure I will find it interesting. I didn't see your cite before so must have missed it.
Ah so it was an opinion. OK I will treat your post as such. I thought you had a cite to show why we should possibly agree with you.
Briettas post provides the cite... Which was clear as my post was in reply to it... I doubt there is an answer to my logical argument
I would say there was a world of difference between criminal and civil cases but I am not a lawyer.
Amaral's duty of reserve wasn't revoked, it was found to be inapplicable.
I think the original trial was probably as fair as the McCanns were going to get. It was when the Appeal & Supreme Courts got involved & moved goalposts that it all became unfair, not least when Amaral's duty of reserve was revoked for some frivolous reason.
Did the SC use legal argument to explain why the duty attached to a retired police officer was revoked?
That was quashed by the Appeal Court who said he did have a duty of reserve (so not 'revoked') but not in respect of facts which were in the public domain;
In effect, and independently of the reasons invoked by the appellant for the publication, it is hardly understandable that an employee, even more a retired one, would have to keep said duties of secrecy and reserve, thus being limited in the exercise of his right to an opinion, concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority, and widely debated (in fact, largely by initiative of the intervenients themselves) in the national and international media.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7153.0
Was Almeida's interim report, which formed the value judgement based on all evidence gathered at that time & subsequently used by Amaral, in the public domain when the book was published?
Why are you asking me?
I'll rephrase. Do you think the SC was correct to say that Amaral was free to opine in his book on reports which were not in the public domain at the time of publishing?
I'll rephrase. Do you think the SC was correct to say that Amaral was free to opine in his book on reports which were not in the public domain at the time of publishing?How far out was it? I thought the publishing was after the release of the file.
The alerts are not proven facts...that is a false statement
Actually they are are proven fact as they took place. The unknown and unproven fact is what they related to.
They are proven facts but not to cadaver... Which is what the Portuguese justice system says
They are proven facts but not to cadaver... Which is what the Portuguese justice system says
Do you have a cite for that?
The alerts have not been proven to be from cadaver
Did the judges say they had?
I haven't mentioned judges... It's part if the proven facts
Was Almeida's interim report, which formed the value judgement based on all evidence gathered at that time & subsequently used by Amaral, in the public domain when the book was published?
Not only was Amaral a convicted criminal (perjury) but his second in command was also a convicted criminal.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449861/Madeleine-McCanns-mother-Kate-wants-defend-court-smears.html
Scroll down to near the bottom of the article. He was convicted of torture
So both the top men had convictions. Why was so much weight given to two convicted criminals?
I haven't mentioned judges... It's part if the proven facts
Can you show me where it says anywhere the alerts were proven not to be cadaver davel?
Let's not get carried away Sadie. Amaral's single conviction was the result of an unfortunate internal episode where he lied to protect his own men. An admirable quality one might suggest (protecting ones men that is despite the consequences for ones own career).
In the proven facts...it states. The dog alerted to cadaver odour
No it doesn't.
Protecting men who are, accused of torture is not admirable
Let's not get carried away Sadie. Amaral's single conviction was the result of an unfortunate internal episode where he lied to protect his own men. An admirable quality one might suggest (protecting ones men that is despite the consequences for ones own career).He lied to protect himself and at the expence of Leonor and Joao Cipriano.
Was it better that a child die?
No it doesn't.
1.2. In the appealed acórdão the following facts are considered proven :I thought proven facts would have to be agreed to by both parties before the trial commences. Maybe the McCanns accept that there was cadaver odour.
6. The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human blood and cadaver scent in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club.
1.2. In the appealed acórdão the following facts are considered proven :
6. The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human blood and cadaver scent in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club.
It would make my life easier if you could provide cites for information quoted. However, I have got it now. It appears in the first judgement dated 27th April 2015, page 9.Good work G-unit. So we have to admit the McCanns accept there was cadaver odour detected in the apartment. Why would they ever do that? It would make sense if they knew there had been a cadaver in the apartment at some stage. That does not mean they accept that that cadaver was Madeleine.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
Now I understand why Gerry McCann wanted to talk about cadaver dogs when he gave his evidence. What I can't work out is who decided what the proven facts were and when they decided what they were. It seems to have happened in a hearing for which we don't have the transcript;
A preliminary hearing (in 5 sessions) occurred, during which was produced the generic preparatory dispatch that declared the plea valid and regular (3)
At the same hearing the undisputed facts were established and the instruction basis was structured, the complaint of the claimants being rejected.
Judgement dated 27th April 2007 page 6
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
Good work G-unit. So we have to admit the McCanns accept there was cadaver odour detected in the apartment. Why would they ever do that? It would make sense if they knew there had been a cadaver in the apartment at some stage. That does not mean they accept that that cadaver was Madeleine.
It would make my life easier if you could provide cites for information quoted. However, I have got it now. It appears in the first judgement dated 27th April 2015, page 9.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
Now I understand why Gerry McCann wanted to talk about cadaver dogs when he gave his evidence. What I can't work out is who decided what the proven facts were and when they decided what they were. It seems to have happened in a hearing for which we don't have the transcript;
A preliminary hearing (in 5 sessions) occurred, during which was produced the generic preparatory dispatch that declared the plea valid and regular (3)
At the same hearing the undisputed facts were established and the instruction basis was structured, the complaint of the claimants being rejected.
Judgement dated 27th April 2007 page 6
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
no we dont RobWould it be on the list of agreed facts if it wasn't?
Would it be on the list of agreed facts if it wasn't?
Good work G-unit. So we have to admit the McCanns accept there was cadaver odour detected in the apartment. Why would they ever do that? It would make sense if they knew there had been a cadaver in the apartment at some stage. That does not mean they accept that that cadaver was Madeleine.
We don't know if the McCanns and/or their lawyers were present at this 'preliminary hearing'. I have a suspicion that the various injunction hearings are what is being referred to.So there is a list of facts that the parties agree to prior to the court case, in writing is OK. So they agree the dogs went through the apartment and they alerted to what they were trained to, and they accepted there had been a cadaver in the apartment.
So there is a list of facts that the parties agree to prior to the court case, in writing is OK. So they agree the dogs went through the apartment and they alerted to what they were trained to, and they accepted there had been a cadaver in the apartment.
I think it is vital especially in my theory they need to accept this as a fact. For they can't claim there was another cadaver involved later if they didn't.
I dont think anything of what you are saying is true...Gerry said the dogs were unreliableWhat he says out of court could be different, but it is what he says/agrees in the court case is the issue here.
What he says out of court could be different, but it is what he says/agrees in the court case is the issue here.
What he says out of court could be different, but it is what he says/agrees in the court case is the issue here.
there is no evidence he agreed to anything...best stick to the factsI think that is the basis of the list of proven facts. Both sides agree to these facts.
I think that is the basis of the list of proven facts. Both sides agree to these facts.
so in the cipriano case you think both sides agreed joannas blood was found in the fridgeI have no idea. I don't study that case.
In the proven facts...it states. The dog alerted to cadaver odour
So when I question the post belowThere is two or more meanings to the word proven
The alerts have not been proven to be from cadaver
You say this. Are they "proven" or not. It doesn't appear that you can make your mind up on that one.
There is two or more meanings to the word proven
Proven scientifically with corroborating evidence.
or proven as being on a list of proven facts or just both parties not disputing the fact.
Like both parties could agree that Kate's finger prints were on the window, but doesn't prove she opened it.
Rob I understand that but Davel went from the dogs alerts were not proven to they were proven. That was my point
"In the proven facts...it states. The dog alerted to cadaver odour" that does not equate to "Madeleine died in the apartment".
So how can they both agree to "The dog alerted to cadaver odour"? That is a difficult question and the only answer I see as a solution is that there was another cadaver in the apartment at some stage.
I have no idea. I don't study that case.What a pity.
Rob neither of your posts explain why davel said the alerts went from unproven to proven. He doesn't make sense but I do understand your point though.I would say if you read that Davel wrote "the dogs alerted to cadaver odour" he is merely repeating the the line from the court transcript.
What a pity.Or it could cloud your judgement.
You might change your mind about certain things had you studied the Cipriano case.
Or it could cloud your judgement.I have thought about it, but there is no reward on offer.
Or it could cloud your judgement.
She was convicted for it in a country where the legal system rules that information obtained under duress is inadmissible.
In theory...
?
In practice she was convicted.
The Portuguese codes state that information obtained under duress is inadmissible; that is more than theory.
If you have evidence the codes were not adhered to let's see it.
This has all been gone over ad nauseam over the past few years.
You have failed to address the question I posed.
It's simple enough, discussion of the Cipriano Torture case being totally unnecessary.
What I have asked to be demonstated is that information obtained under duress was declared admissible by the courts and used in the prosecution and conviction of L.Cipriano in contravention of Portugals legal codes.
Two inspectors PJ convicted of torture
Lawyer shows the victim was relieved by the end of a process that has dragged on for 13 years. "From what I understand, it is the first time that such a process leads to the conviction of persons in concrete," says the Express.
Rui Gustavo and Ricardo Marques
17:44 Friday, January 25, 2013
Two chief inspectors of the PJ were sentenced today to prison terms of two and a half years, suspended upon payment of a fine in that monthly period, for having tortured a man DCCB's premises in March 2000. Another element of PJ was acquitted.
In a judgment with about 40 pages, the Lisbon Criminal Court sentenced the two chief inspectors of the Judicial Police to pay each month, each, the sum of 80 euros for a fund that will ultimately accrue to the victim, Virgolino Borges, who was assistant in the process. The decision was known in 3. ª stick, by 14h30.
Jerónimo Martins, lawyer Virgolino Borges, was relieved by the end of a process that has dragged on for 13 years. "From what I understand, it is the first time that such a process leads to the conviction of persons in concrete," he told Expresso.
The three inspectors - Diamond José dos Santos, Vitor Tavares de Almeida and Antonio Alves da Cunha, were part of the same brigade of the then Central Directorate for Combating Gangsterism (DCCB). In March 2000, Virgolino Borges was taken to the PJ on suspicion of theft (a process that eventually involved). On days 2 and 3, he complained, was beaten repeatedly with a board and punched in the feet by PJ inspectors.
In a first phase investigation, the prosecutor eventually dismiss the case. At that time, consisted Virgolino assistant and requested the opening statement - which culminated in the indictment of three police for the crime of torture, criminal whose frame varies between one and five years in prison.
The two defendants, Diamantino dos Santos de Almeida and Tavares were convicted co-author and should appeal the conviction.
The three inspectors Judicial, both now convicted and who was acquitted, all remain active.
http://expresso.sapo.pt/dois-inspetores ... ra=f782292
No, you didn't mention the L. Cipriano case at all Alice
Here is mention of a case that demonstrated that information obtained under duress MUST have been accepted by the Courts, because after the perseverance of Virgolino Bourges, (railway official) for 13 years (!!!) the Courts finally accepted that he was tortured and Inspector Tavares de Almeida + another inspector were guilty of that torture
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2140.msg71061#msg71061
Re: The Tavares de Almeida conviction and its relevance to the Madeleine Mccann case
DCI Reply #14 on: August 28, 2013, 11:40:37 AM »
Incedentally you will notice that this website will not open ... and that is because it has been tampered with
Also all the references to Almeidas Criminal Offence, along with reports on the Torture of Virgolino Borges have been wiped off the internet
Just who is wiping all the evidence away ? Sinister IMO
.
No not "Sinister" Sadie just a dodgy link posted back in 2013. If you look at the original poster's link it is not complete.
Edited. I have found the original on the Espresso website, so no conspiracy at all. It took me all of 5 seconds.
Thank you Sunny.https://expresso.sapo.pt/sociedade/dois-inspetores-da-pj-condenados-por-tortura=f782292#gs.oxWIQSk
Would it be possible for you to provide the link?
https://expresso.sapo.pt/sociedade/dois-inspetores-da-pj-condenados-por-tortura=f782292#gs.oxWIQSk
No not "Sinister" Sadie just a dodgy link posted back in 2013. If you look at the original poster's link it is not complete.
Edited. I have found the original on the Espresso website, so no conspiracy at all. It took me all of 5 seconds.
It was complete when posted, cos I opened and read it.
who has changed it ?
Sinister.
If evidence can be deleted and altered, what hope is there for Justice ?
I don't like the Internet; too many things can be changed.
It was complete when posted, cos I opened and read it.
who has changed it ?
Sinister.
If evidence can be deleted and altered, what hope is there for Justice ?
I don't like the Internet; too many things can be changed.
Your understanding of how the internet works is lacking. It is a volatile environment, when a site has a tidy up they will remove pages and areas that have not been accessed for a while or are in their minds no longer required. Sites are removed on a regular basis, people have to pay for web hosting and will not continue to do so just for the benefit of other users.It'a amazing how this tidy up obliterates information / Photos that are essential to the Madeleine case and the Joana Ciopriano case.
It'a amazing how this tidy up obliterates information / Photos that are essential to the Madeleine case and the Joana Ciopriano case.
The only way to keep these photos and info is to print hard copies of it. I have a mountain of such hard copies and for safety distributed amonst friends too, but it is hard to keep so many ... so that they can be easily found again
Sadie you may find it easier to save the information you want on a disc rather than printing them out.
Thank you Sunny. I do sometimes (rarely) save to something seperate from the computer, a USB pen?, but I am a computer ignoramus and never know if I have been successful. With paper I know if I have got it captured.
It'a amazing how this tidy up obliterates information / Photos that are essential to the Madeleine case and the Joana Ciopriano case.
The only way to keep these photos and info is to print hard copies of it. I have a mountain of such hard copies and for safety distributed amonst friends too, but it is hard to keep so many ... so that they can be easily found again
The internet isn't as reliable as it was made out to be by all accounts. It's a bit like rewriting history imo.
What evidence about what?