So what actual searching was there?

[faithlilly]

because I didn't read it, but perhaps someone in Portugal should have read it before they made the McCanns and Murat their chief suspects, eh?

We are talking about the UK not Portugal. Here are the guidelines for the naming of suspects in the UK :

'If the police or another agency is investigating a person or the person is under arrest, this makes them a crime suspect. Media organisations, though, must be careful not to publish the identity (name or another detail identifying him/her) of a suspect at this stage, if they have been able to discover such information. This is because if the police investigation does not lead to a criminal prosecution then the suspect would be able to sue the organisation for libel. 

This remains the case for reports or broadcasts which make it very clear that no prosecution has yet taken place (and thus the suspect could still be completely innocent). This is because such an, albeit factually correct report, creates an inference that the person might be guilty and so is defamatory to that suspect. Such an inference may turn out to be unfounded and the media organisation may be unable to defend it in a subsequent libel case.

However, there may be an official release of the identity of a person under investigation or under arrest by a spokesperson for the police, the CPS or other governmental agencies like local councils. In this instance, it is perfectly safe for a media organisation to publish this information as if it comes to a libel case, they can rely on the defence of qualified privilege (if all the requirements for this are met).

ACPO guidelines on police naming of suspects

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) issued a set of guidelines to the police on this subject. The guidelines stated that the police should not generally provide the names of people under investigation to the media. If they do not actually identify the suspect, the police are allowed to give some details such as age, occupation or where the suspect is from. 

The ACPO guidelines also state that once an individual has been charged then the police can and will identify them to the media, usually providing name, age and occupation. There are certain exceptions; for instance this applies to adults (see other articles for juveniles). The official release of this information will include details of the charge and subsequent court appearances.

In what it terms ‘exceptional circumstances’, the ACPO guidelines accept that police may release the name of a suspect prior to a charge, if it is in the public interest to do so. Moreover, when a media organisation has already discovered the suspect’s name through investigative journalism and seek confirmation of it, the police are permitted to confirm the name.'

[faithlilly]

having now skimmed the article in your link it seems to be advice for media outlets to avoid being sued for libel, not about the risk to future convictions secured by the judiciary by the police naming of a suspect prior to arrest, as you have stated.

The point being made is there was a very good reason why Redwood couldn't name the McCanns, whether they were being investigated as suspects or not.

[Alice Purjorick]

And there as me thinking that the recent court case had decided GA's book and hence the theories contained within had not impacted on the search.

Pretty much but some don't believe it. The Portuguese judge is quoted on the "bun and ha'penny" principle too. One minute she don't know A from a bulls foot then the next she is a pillar of wisdom depending on what day of the week it is [seemingly] ...............

[Alfred R Jones]

We are talking about the UK not Portugal. Here are the guidelines for the naming of suspects in the UK :

'If the police or another agency is investigating a person or the person is under arrest, this makes them a crime suspect. Media organisations, though, must be careful not to publish the identity (name or another detail identifying him/her) of a suspect at this stage, if they have been able to discover such information. This is because if the police investigation does not lead to a criminal prosecution then the suspect would be able to sue the organisation for libel. 

This remains the case for reports or broadcasts which make it very clear that no prosecution has yet taken place (and thus the suspect could still be completely innocent). This is because such an, albeit factually correct report, creates an inference that the person might be guilty and so is defamatory to that suspect. Such an inference may turn out to be unfounded and the media organisation may be unable to defend it in a subsequent libel case.

However, there may be an official release of the identity of a person under investigation or under arrest by a spokesperson for the police, the CPS or other governmental agencies like local councils. In this instance, it is perfectly safe for a media organisation to publish this information as if it comes to a libel case, they can rely on the defence of qualified privilege (if all the requirements for this are met).

ACPO guidelines on police naming of suspects

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) issued a set of guidelines to the police on this subject. The guidelines stated that the police should not generally provide the names of people under investigation to the media. If they do not actually identify the suspect, the police are allowed to give some details such as age, occupation or where the suspect is from. 

The ACPO guidelines also state that once an individual has been charged then the police can and will identify them to the media, usually providing name, age and occupation. There are certain exceptions; for instance this applies to adults (see other articles for juveniles). The official release of this information will include details of the charge and subsequent court appearances.

In what it terms ‘exceptional circumstances’, the ACPO guidelines accept that police may release the name of a suspect prior to a charge, if it is in the public interest to do so. Moreover, when a media organisation has already discovered the suspect’s name through investigative journalism and seek confirmation of it, the police are permitted to confirm the name.'

Can you please highlight the bit where it says the police are not permitted to name a suspect in case it jeopardizes the safety of any future conviction, as you have claimed?  Many thanks.

[Brietta]

And there as me thinking that the recent court case had decided GA's book and hence the theories contained within had not impacted on the search.

Of course his book didn't have an effect on the searches which should have been happening in the golden hours and days after Madeleine's disappearance.  It was what he actually did and what he actually failed to do which impinged on the search for her.

We have a thread in existence where one can post what Mr Amaral got right ... perhaps you should add to it, not many posters have.

[Alfred R Jones]

The point being made is there was a very good reason why Redwood couldn't name the McCanns, whether they were being investigated as suspects or not.

Who has ever suggested that he should have named the McCanns as suspects?  Not me.  But he could very easily have either deflected the question, or simply insisted that the question was never asked or broadcast in the first place.  You have this fantasy that Redwood was put on the spot live on TV and had to quickly cobble together an answer to some direct question about the McCanns' status.  Do you have any evidence that this was indeed the case?

[faithlilly]

Can you please highlight the bit where it says the police are not permitted to name a suspect in case it jeopardizes the safety of any future conviction, as you have claimed?  Many thanks.

it doesn't but what it does say is that when an investigation is ongoing the police cannot name who they have in their sights. So to look at that statement in the context of this case, even if SY had been investigating the McCanns at the time of his announcement Redwood would not have been able, legally, to divulge that to the press.

[Alice Purjorick]

Of course his book didn't have an effect on the searches which should have been happening in the golden hours and days after Madeleine's disappearance.  It was what he actually did and what he actually failed to do which impinged on the search for her.

We have a thread in existence where one can post what Mr Amaral got right ... perhaps you should add to it, not many posters have.

How do reconcile that with a court case, brought about twelve months after Sr Amaral retired, the thrust of one element being the publication of the book and DVD had impaired the search?

[faithlilly]

Who has ever suggested that he should have named the McCanns as suspects?  Not me.  But he could very easily have either deflected the question, or simply insisted that the question was never asked or broadcast in the first place.  You have this fantasy that Redwood was put on the spot live on TV and had to quickly cobble together an answer to some direct question about the McCanns' status.  Do you have any evidence that this was indeed the case?

So he deflects the question ' I'm sorry I can't answer that .' result : wild speculation
He insists the question is never asked. The Daily Snail next day ' yesterday DCI Redwood refused to be drawn on whether the McCanns were being investigated at this time'.

[John]

I don't think Redwood has ever named anyone, neither suspect nor witness, but then what did he ever give away?

[mercury]

I don't think Redwood has ever named anyone, neither suspect nor witness, but then what did he ever give away?

He was a spokesman no diff to clarence mitchell

Ie pointless and paid

[Brietta]

How do reconcile that with a court case, brought about twelve months after Sr Amaral retired, the thrust of one element being the publication of the book and DVD had impaired the search?

I am not referring either to the court case or to the book.  I am attempting to address the the subject of the thread. 

Madeleine is a missing child who has been declared dead without a shred of supporting evidence to that effect.  The search for her at a time and place of the best chance of finding what had happened to her was abrogated in preference for securing a conviction.

It was a technique which had worked perfectly well in 'solving' the Cipriano case. 

In Madeleine's case neither Robert Murat or Madeleine's parents were uneducated country folk.

Mr Amaral's adherence to his thesis is just one instance of actions which by their nature must have interfered with the search for Madeleine ...

Of the many professional opinions which have been expressed about Madeleine's case the Amaral theory is considered implausible.
Not least by the current PJ and SY teams who are interested in finding who abducted Madeleine following leads, many of which were available at the time to the Amaral investigation.
If his theory did not interfere with the search for her ... what other reason is there for that level of incompetence?

[pegasus]

It's surprising that no-one mentions pulling the sofa away from the wall to search behind it then pushing it back again.

[misty]

It's surprising that no-one mentions pulling the sofa away from the wall to search behind it then pushing it back again.

The sofa positioned in the living area in front of the window wall was the only piece of furniture in that room a child could hide behind. It is ludicrous to think that not a single civilian or police officer looked behind it & also behind the closed curtains.

[pegasus]

The sofa positioned in the living area in front of the window wall was the only piece of furniture in that room a child could hide behind. It is ludicrous to think that not a single civilian or police officer looked behind it & also behind the closed curtains.

But why does no-one mention pulling the sofa out in their statement?