I assume he is accusing someone of telling a lie?Is not his opinion that Madeleine was not abducted as in the Parents claims there by his book in his opinion as backed by the courts is showing that claim to be a lie.
And he is going to tell the truth about that lie.
So what is the lie?
Is not his opinion that Madeleine was not abducted as in the Parents claims there by his book in his opinion as backed by the courts is showing that claim to be a lie.
Is not his opinion that Madeleine was not abducted as in the Parents claims there by his book in his opinion as backed by the courts is showing that claim to be a lie.Did the courts back Amaral’s claim that abduction was a lie? If so, kindly provde the cite.
Is not his opinion that Madeleine was not abducted as in the Parents claims there by his book in his opinion as backed by the courts is showing that claim to be a lie.
Did anyone ever find his Ace?
Did anyone ever find his Ace?
Like the McCann's claim that they knew things they couldn't reveal due to judicial secrecy. We still haven't been enlightened by them either.
I doubt it ever existed or he's keeping it a closely guarded secret.
If he is, then he is guilty of perverting the course of justice.IMO
I started the thread because I have only read parts of the book and did wonder if someone who has read the entire book could reveal if he has accused the parents of only one lie or several lies.
And did he reveal "The Truth" to the satisfaction of anyone who has read it?
If you haven’t read the whole book then you are commenting from an uninformed position. Could I respectfully suggest that you have full knowledge of what you are commenting on before commenting?
I assume he is accusing someone of telling a lie?Going to tell ?
And he is going to tell the truth about that lie.
So what is the lie?
Going to tell ?
You’re a bit late to be asking about a book title that’s back on sale, been online for years yet you say you havn’t read all of it but post as if you have imo..*%87
Going to tell ?
You’re a bit late to be asking about a book title that’s back on sale, been online for years yet you say you havn’t read all of it but post as if you have imo..*%87
I haven't read Amaral's Book, and don't intend to. I get enough snippets here. But we still don't know what The Lie was, and nor, it appears, do the people who have read it.You don’t intend to read a book based on the PJ files regarding the investigation, yet feel justified in making detrimental comments about the latter ? How droll .
You don’t intend to read a book based on the PJ files regarding the investigation, yet feel justified in making detrimental comments about the latter ? How droll .
You don’t intend to read a book based on the PJ files regarding the investigation, yet feel justified in making detrimental comments about the latter ? How droll .
Ive read enough snippets to realise its rubbish
I was hoping that someone who had read the book would give me their opinion.
I really was commenting on the title of the book and expressing my opinion on that.
I do hope you are giving the same guidance to those who comment on the SY investigation who are also commenting from "an uniformed opinion" and should have " full knowledge" of the investigation before making any comment.
Considering the "lie" has not been proven and he certainly can not do so, then the title of his book is outrageous and indeed libellous.IMO
Considering the "lie" has not been proven and he certainly can not do so, then the title of his book is outrageous and indeed libellous.IMO
If there had been anything definitively interesting in The Book do you not think someone would have found it by now?You very obviously have the wrong idea of what the book contains .
There was no abduction imo - that's why nobody has found any evidence in nearly 12 years.
As the learned judge noted ... not even the blurb on the cover is accurate. 8)-)))
Jerry Lawton @JerryLawton
4:35 PM - 8 Oct 13
Judge stops lawyers on both sides asking Amaral's former cop colleagues their conclusions on #McCann case because 'opinions' not 'facts'
Jerry Lawton @JerryLawton
4:41 PM - 8 Oct 13
Judge to Paiva: 'What's new in the book that's not in the police files?'
Paiva: 'Nothing' #McCann
Jerry Lawton @JerryLawton
4:43 PM - 8 Oct 13
judge says book cover says it contains 'exclusive revelations'..'ok so then I have to conclude this is misleading advertising', #McCann
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id461.htm
And you formed this OPINION from reading the Truth of the Lie?
Or you know his for a fact.
Or you formed this OPINION from your own research?
I am and I do. We have no idea what SY are investigating.
Interesting though that we have been told this week about a meeting between the parents and SY, allegedly to update the McCanns on the progress of the investigation. As we have been previously told that the parents are regularly updated it does make you wonder why this particular meeting was newsworthy.
You very obviously have the wrong idea of what the book contains .
My own research but Amaral is right. No evidence of Abduction so it is a lie!
He should've called it - The window to the truth or The Key or not to key @)(++(*
So The Title is wrong then. I have read that.I have to wonder what guests make of some of the replies in here
Ive read enough snippets to realise its rubbish
#MeToo.Snippet readers . Says it all really on how to form an opinion . (&^&
Yes no stranger prints found on the open window - not even a glove mark! There was evidence on that window. Give me any evidence of a stranger in that apartment? You have none!
It obviously makes you wonder!
Have your wonderings t brought you any answer to this question?
I have to wonder what guests make of some of the replies in here
. Snippet readers . Says it all really on how to form an opinion . (&^&
I’m sure answers will come in the fullness of time.
So you don't know why this particular meeting was newsworthy?
All that I know is that amongst all the meetings the parents have allegedly had with SY this one has made the front pages. Isn’t that odd to you ?
Don't know but they have mine. 22:03
Many here have formed opinions of the ongoing investigation, without reading the facts/evidence gathered by the investigation.I was always taught that you cannot form an opinion on anything unless you know what you’re talking about .
Reading a few chapters of the book I was not impressed with his evidence.
Now you have read all of the book.
Did it convince you that there was a lie and he presented the truth?
Don't concern yourself with the guests readng this thread.
I'm sure they find the whole forum enthralling.
I'll think about it and try to think why it might be odd.
I was rather hoping you knew.
Sometimes you give the impression, at least to me, of having inside information.
I was always taught that you cannot form an opinion on anything unless you know what you’re talking about .
Unless you have read the PJ files and/ or the book based the files you cannot imo have anything else to base your opinion on .
Yes of course I have read the book andof course there was a lie and yes he showed what the truth of the lie was . All imo .
Do I ?you claimed to very recently.
What was the lie?Oh really do you think I would spoon feed you after I’ve done the hard work and you havn’t read up on anything . (&^&
And what was the truth?
I was always taught that you cannot form an opinion on anything unless you know what you’re talking about .”of course there was a lie”? Cite please.
Unless you have read the PJ files and/ or the book based the files you cannot imo have anything else to base your opinion on .
Yes of course I have read the book andof course there was a lie and yes he showed what the truth of the lie was . All imo .
Oh really do you think I would spoon feed you after I’ve done the hard work and you havn’t read up on anything . (&^&cites are a requirement on this forum when making statements of fact.
I was always taught that you cannot form an opinion on anything unless you know what you’re talking about .
Unless you have read the PJ files and/ or the book based the files you cannot imo have anything else to base your opinion on .
Yes of course I have read the book andof course there was a lie and yes he showed what the truth of the lie was . All imo .
I was always taught that you cannot form an opinion on anything unless you know what you’re talking about .
Unless you have read the PJ files and/ or the book based the files you cannot imo have anything else to base your opinion on .
Yes of course I have read the book andof course there was a lie and yes he showed what the truth of the lie was . All imo .
Oh really do you think I would spoon feed you after I’ve done the hard work and you havn’t read up on anything . (&^&
Oh really do you think I would spoon feed you after I’ve done the hard work and you havn’t read up on anything . (&^&
cites are a requirement on this forum when making statements of fact.
But they are not when it is posted as opinion. Which snowgirl's post was.so you can write any old bollocks as long as you add the letters “imo” to it. Great.
so you can write any old bollocks as long as you add the letters “imo” to it. Great.
I was always taught that you cannot form an opinion on anything unless you know what you’re talking about .
Unless you have read the PJ files and/ or the book based the files you cannot imo have anything else to base your opinion on .
Yes of course I have read the book andof course there was a lie and yes he showed what the truth of the lie was . All imo .
Care to share?No !
Shouldn't you have added Imo to that ?
Unless of course you can provide proof that the book is make believe.
No ... it is a statement of fact.
You must surely have a counter argument proving it's validity and Amaral's stated opinion based on the content.
A statement of fact in your opinion Brietta.shouldn’t you add IMO to the above?
shouldn’t you add IMO to the above?
No. Brietta posted an opinion and that is a fact.in your opinion.
No. Brietta posted an opinion and that is a fact.
No !
you claimed to very recently.
No I didn’t. I said I had learned something recently due to a friend’s chance encounter. Make of that what you will.Yes, insider info that you prefer not to elaborate on. Very mysterious I’m sure... 8**8:/:
Yes, insider info that you prefer not to elaborate on. Very mysterious I’m sure... 8**8:/:
No I didn’t. I said I had learned something recently due to a friend’s chance encounter. Make of that what you will.
Goodness me!
Learned something about the investigation?
Learned something about Madeleine's disappearance?
Can you give us a clue?
Would you believe me if I did ?
Best just wait and see how things pan out eh ?
Insider ? I have never claimed that.Yes, you claimed you know someone who chanced upon the McCanns having a meeting with the Met. That's insider info isn't it?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10458.msg504025#msg504025 like others you fail to differentiate between fact and opinion but a useful deflection when you obviously have no counter argument using fact.
Yes, you claimed you know someone who chanced upon the McCanns having a meeting with the Met. That's insider info isn't it?
Perhaps you can give me a cite for this then brietta.
The book is deeply flawed and its content make believe.
The mystery is why so many people fell for it.
Perhaps you can give me a cite for this then brietta.
The book is deeply flawed and its content make believe.
The mystery is why so many people fell for it.
Oh I do believe it would be "hard work" reading that book. (&^&
I didn’t claim that.Don’t tease, it’s very childish.
Don’t tease, it’s very childish.
I’m not teasing, I am correcting you.Remind us what you claimed then.
Remind us what you claimed then.
Read back.On this thread?
Why this indignation so many years after the event?
For davel and VS who obviously don't understand the written word.
Bolded bit his opinion backed by the courts in allowing his opinion.
Cause they can.
I assume he is accusing someone of telling a lie?
And he is going to tell the truth about that lie.
So what is the lie?
You assume correctly Erngath. Amaral's entire thesis revolves around the abduction being an invention. He claims that Madeleine died in her parent's holiday apartment and that they and/or others his her remains.
The lie according to Amaral was the claimed abduction.
And does he prove this to be a lie?
You assume correctly Erngath. Amaral's entire thesis revolves around the abduction being an invention. He claims that Madeleine died in her parent's holiday apartment and that they and/or others hid her remains.The reason supporters don't want to read the book isn't it ? Afraid they might see something that contradicts their belief that those parents and their friends couldn't possibly be involved , despite they were not there on that holiday .
The lie according to Amaral was the claimed abduction. In the book he systematically go through the events which occurred the night the child disappeared making specific reference to inconsistencies and conflicting accounts.
The reason supporters don't want to read the book isn't it ? Afraid they might see something that contradicts their belief that those parents and their friends couldn't possibly be involved , despite they were not there on that holiday .
Seems to me these grown ups are protecting themselves and the child,whichever way you look at it had no one to protect her . All my opinion .
That is a ridiculous theory.It's not actually a theory ,it's a conclusion I came to . So do you want to counter it by telling just why you don't want to read it ,study the investigation as it progressed .
If there is any conclusive proof that Madeleine's parents had any part to play in her disappearance, then I for one would want justice to be done.
To suggest that supporters are afraid of reading the book is absolute nonsense!
It's not actually a theory ,it's a conclusion I came to . So do you want to counter it by telling just why you don't want to read it ,study the investigation as it progressed .
For davel and VS who obviously don't understand the written word.To be fair your sentence is virtually impossible to understand from start to finish.
Bolded bit his opinion backed by the courts in allowing his opinion.
It's not actually a theory ,it's a conclusion I came to . So do you want to counter it by telling just why you don't want to read it ,study the investigation as it progressed .I’ve read it. What amazed me most about it is how short most of the chapters are.
It's not actually a theory ,it's a conclusion I came to . So do you want to counter it by telling just why you don't want to read it ,study the investigation as it progressed .
I’ve read it. What amazed me most about it is how short most of the chapters are.
Are you able to explain why you concur with the conclusion in Amaral's book? E.g. what made the Smith sighting credible but the Tanner sighting dubious?
I have read the full book btw.
In the early days of the libel trial [ca Q1 2014] we had this:
"another witness sits in a foreign court spits his dummy out, slags off the local judiciary then says he didn’t read the book because he knew it was lies without reading it".
My paraphrasing of I believe Michael Wrights performance.
The books, Sr Amaral's and Dr K McCann's that is, are for my money like Catch 22, The Source and Dr Zhivago; loads of people bang on about them but few have made it to the last page...ho hum!
Anyone who hasn't read the last page of Amaral's book would be unaware of the libel.
I started to read it.Ah you're bored by the written word and want some juicy bits .Sorry there aren't any .
Got to the second chapter, found it utterly boring and gave up!
Which chapters convinced you that the parents of Madeleine are complicit in her disappearance?
I'll find them and read them.
Anyone who hasn't read the last page of Amaral's book would be unaware of the libel.
I’ve read it. What amazed me most about it is how short most of the chapters are.
One presumes the Portuguese courts didn't several times. Or their opinion was at variance to others, based on them having had plenty of law college.
"The sun is going down over this beautiful countryside. Children are playing under the watchful gaze of their parents. I think about the enthusiasm that was characteristic of him when I met Tavares in November 1981, at the judiciary police school, and which still fires him. The past seems distant, but it's not forgotten. We gave the best of ourselves to resolve this case. Our conclusions rest on the proven facts and the evidence interpreted within the principles of the law. Our work was done in the cause of justice, based on the material truth, the only thing that must prevail in a universe where the lie is raised up as truth. END "Well on that one issue both Kate and Goncalo agree that the truth will come out in the end.
Gonçalo Amaral
"The sun is going down over this beautiful countryside. Children are playing under the watchful gaze of their parents. I think about the enthusiasm that was characteristic of him when I met Tavares in November 1981, at the judiciary police school, and which still fires him. The past seems distant, but it's not forgotten. We gave the best of ourselves to resolve this case. Our conclusions rest on the proven facts and the evidence interpreted within the principles of the law. Our work was done in the cause of justice, based on the material truth, the only thing that must prevail in a universe where the lie is raised up as truth. END "
Gonçalo Amaral
The problem is... The proven facts, were not proven...... And his interpretation of the evidence was incorrect....I bet he never used “IMO” once either!
Which explains where the Lie is
No ... it is a statement of fact.It is quite clearly opinion.
You must surely have a counter argument proving it's validity and Amaral's stated opinion based on the content.
I've come to think a major problem was Grimes and Harrison's statements being in English.... As were the forensic reports... Amaral would have been getting them third hand. A recipe for disaster...
Which may explain his emphatic but untrue statement that
"The body, the existence of which has been confirmed by the EVRD and CSI dogs but also by the results of the preliminary laboratory analyses cannot be found."
Which may explain his emphatic but untrue statement that
"The body, the existence of which has been confirmed by the EVRD and CSI dogs but also by the results of the preliminary laboratory analyses cannot be found."
Exactly... We can read the, statements in English and still don't totally agree on their exact meaning.... How do we know what account amaral was given..
However he uses this flawed statement to further state.
The conclusions my team and I have arrived at are the following.
"The minor Madeleine McCann died inside apartment. 5A of the Ocean Club in Vila de Luz on the night of May 3rd 2007"
No IMO
No possibly.
An emphatic statement!
That is Libel. No opinion about it. Amaral was no longer a serving Police Officer at that time.
That is Libel. No opinion about it. Amaral was no longer a serving Police Officer at that time.
His next statement is.
"There was simulation of abduction"
No I believe or in my opinion.
Then he does add a "probably'
Kate Healy and Gerald McCann were probably involved in the concealment of their daughter's body"
Surely that is libellous.
Misty was correct about the last page IMO
However he uses this flawed statement to further state.Conclusions are opinions aren't they.
The conclusions my team and I have arrived at are the following.
"The minor Madeleine McCann died inside apartment. 5A of the Ocean Club in Vila de Luz on the night of May 3rd 2007"
No IMO
No possibly.
An emphatic statement!
Conclusions are opinions aren't they.
I don't agree.Conclusions are special types of opinion.IMO.
Conclusions are judgements and/ or decisions surely.
Much more emphatic than an opinion.
The conclusion of a trial results in a decision/ judgement surely, not an opinion?
I don't agree.
Conclusions are judgements and/ or decisions surely.
Much more emphatic than an opinion.
The conclusion of a trial results in a decision/ judgement surely, not an opnion?
A decision might still be nothing more than an opinion - IMO
I'll take that on board for Leonor Cipriano.
In my opinion Amaral has written untruths in his book.There’s been plenty of libel then against Amaral ?
He has made emphatic statements which he cannot prove IMO.
He draws conclusions which he cannot support.
Whether you see these as opinions matters not a jot!
Surely opinions can also be libellous,?
There’s been plenty of libel then against Amaral ?
UK newspapers “ poisonous liar” comment recently ?
Amaral is a poisonous liar. That's not Libel. It's The Truth.Surely your opinion becauseit hasn’t been proved .
Surely your opinion becauseit hasn’t been proved .
You know of course that the newspapers carrying that slur have been reported ?
Surely your opinion becauseit hasn’t been proved .
You know of course that the newspapers carrying that slur have been reported ?
Why has it been reported and by whom?
I’m sure it’ll be given as short shrift as the dossier was.
Surely your opinion becauseit hasn’t been proved .
You know of course that the newspapers carrying that slur have been reported ?
Has it been reported to the police?
Why has it been reported and by whom?Ask me another on exactly who but I have read elsewhere that Paulo Reis a Portuguese journalist has reported to IPSO .
If it could be shown to be untrue why not suedThat might be forthcoming ?
Ask me another on exactly who but I have read elsewhere that Paulo Reis a Portuguese journalist has reported to IPSO .
as I understand his complaint has been rejected and all reference to it now removedHave you a cite please to confirm that ?
That might be forthcoming ?
Have you a cite please t confirm that ?
That might be forthcoming ?
Ask me another on exactly who but I have read elsewhere that Paulo Reis a Portuguese journalist has reported to IPSO .
I really hope so but as he has a criminal conviction for lying in the case of proven torture he might well struggleI don’t know your profession nor do I want to know but as it’s known Amaral qualified in law I believe he might know his rights and chances don’t you ?
I don’t know your profession nor do I want to know but as it’s known Amaral qualified in law I believe he might know his rights and chances don’t you ?
Is he doing that on behalf of Amaral ?I am not the fountain of all matters pertaining to this ,merely that I learned PR had reported the U.K. journalists to IPSO .
Has reported what to IPSO?
Being called a "poisonous liar?
I am not the fountain of all matters pertaining to this ,merely that I learned PR had reported the U.K. journalists to IPSO .
not necessarily....i actually sued a solicitor and won...showing I understood the law better than he did...amaral probably understands he has no caseWhat can you do to show me that you seem to know the law better than Amaral or that he probably understands he has no case ?
it was on CMOMM.....and as i understand thereply the complaint had been rejected...all reference to it has now been removedI didn’t hear it from there .
What can you do to show me that you seem to know the law better than Amaral or that he probably understands he has no case ?
I didn’t hear it from there .
I didOk 8(0(*
first...has amaral said he has a case.....the law on libel in the UK is fairly simple...based on the fact he has a criminal conviction for lying he doesnt have much defence to being called a liarAs I said I am not a fountain of knowledge . You seem to know he doesn’t have a case .
first...has amaral said he has a case.....the law on libel in the UK is fairly simple...based on the fact he has a criminal conviction for lying he doesnt have much defence to being called a liarHow far back can that sort of argument be applied? Lies in the play ground hanging over you forever?
How far back can that sort of argument be applied? Lies in the play ground hanging over you forever?
first...has amaral said he has a case.....the law on libel in the UK is fairly simple...based on the fact he has a criminal conviction for lying he doesnt have much defence to being called a liar
I think they’d struggle justifying the use of poisonous.
first...has amaral said he has a case.....the law on libel in the UK is fairly simple...based on the fact he has a criminal conviction for lying he doesnt have much defence to being called a liar
Depends on whether you are doing it purely to blacken his character.
You can't blacken the character of a Convicted Perjurer. Amaral did that, all by himself.
That is where you are wrong. Using spent convictions to lower someone’s reputation can be libellous.
That is where you are wrong. Using spent convictions to lower someone’s reputation can be libellous.
can being the operative word...it might well be ruled in a UK court that the LIE in amarals book comes from amaral
Probably explains why Waterstones aren't stocking it."Waterstones, formerly Waterstone's, is a British book retailer that operates 283 shops, mainly in the UK and also other nearby countries. As of February 2014, it employs around 3,500 staff in the UK and Europe."
can being the operative word...it might well be ruled in a UK court that the LIE in amarals book comes from amaral(&^& What type of UK Court would that be ?
To be honest, when I read the book online I assumed I was reading an abridged version with just the “best bits” in it, therefore I wasn’t confident in claiming I’d read the whole book, but apparently the version online IS the whole book. It must have been knocked out in a couple of long days, fueled by fags and Americanos. IMO.
Many non-fiction books are written with a broad audience in mind. Obviously Amaral's book was not intended to be a thesis at an academic level.
IMO Amaral explains how the case panned out systematically and succinctly. I don't think he needed to do any more than that to get the facts across.
As regards the 'lie'. The book details Amaral's theory which he bases on facts of the case, he concluded there was no abduction. So in his opinion, the lie is that Madeleine was abducted.
And is he accusing Madeleine's parents of telling this lie?
If something can't be proved but is presented as a fact is that lying?
And is he accusing Madeleine's parents of telling this lie?
Actually, I have a correction to make. Amaral has said the book was based on the conclusion of the investigation he has never said it was solely his opinion.
This is not a case of one man accusing the McCanns of lying, it is the conclusion of the investigation at that time.
If Amaral was any Tom Dick or Harry and not part of that case, I doubt he would have not been able to defend against the McCann's libel claims.
Actually, I have a correction to make. Amaral has said the book was based on the conclusion of the investigation he has never said it was solely his opinion.
This is not a case of one man accusing the McCanns of lying, it is the conclusion of the investigation at that time.
If Amaral was any Tom Dick or Harry and not part of that case, I doubt he would have not been able to defend against the McCann's libel claims.
If something can't be proved but is presented as a fact is that lying?
If something can't be proved but is presented as a fact is that lying?
The investigation never said it could prove Maddie died in the apartment and her death was covered up
He is accusing Madeleine's parents of lying.
Is he not?
As a participant in the investigation yes, as The Supreme Court recognised.
"They also found Mr Amaral had not acted "illicitly" ruling the content of his book had no "defamatory intention" behind it.
"Our opinion is that rather than an injurious animus, the intention was informative and defensive,” they wrote. ''
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/madeleine-mccann-missing-abduction-parents-legal-battle-goncalo-amaral-police-claims-portugal-a7588281.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/madeleine-mccann-missing-abduction-parents-legal-battle-goncalo-amaral-police-claims-portugal-a7588281.html)
He didn't intend to defame because the book is based on the conclusion of the investigation, which is a matter of public record. If he was just an ordinary member of the public his book could not be defensive could it?
I repeat that he wrote the book accusing the parents of telling a lie, therefore faking the abduction, involved with the disposal of Madeleine's body and being involved in a huge cover up and fraud.
Serious accusations,!
Did the investigation put those accusations into the public arena?
I repeat that he wrote the book accusing the parents of telling a lie, therefore faking the abduction, involved with the disposal of Madeleine's body and being involved in a huge cover up and fraud.Eh ? Can you give a cite where Amaral accused them of fraud and have you still not taken the time to read up on facts in the PJ files ?
Serious accusations,!
Did the investigation put those accusations into the public arena?
I repeat that he wrote the book accusing the parents of telling a lie, therefore faking the abduction, involved with the disposal of Madeleine's body and being involved in a huge cover up and fraud.
Serious accusations,!
Did the investigation put those accusations into the public arena?
Eh ? Can you give a cite where Amaral accused them of fraud and have you still not taken the time to read up on facts in the PJ files ?
Ah, Yes. All of that money in The Fund, obtained by Fraud. But didn't Amaral say at some point that this was a problem for The UK?
Ignoring your rudeness once again.
By accusing them of lying about the abduction, does it not follow that they have committed a huge cover up and fraud.
Indeed it would, but any financial fraud would be in the UK and as such, outside Portuguese jurisdiction.
Ignoring your rudeness once again.You didn’t make it clear what kind of fraud .
By accusing them of lying about the abduction, does it not follow that they have committed a huge cover up and fraud.
Agreed but by accusing Madeleine's parents of lying, it follows that the other accusations are implicit.
Yes. What is your problem with that position?
Do I need to have a problem?How has Amaral a problem ? The Supreme Court ruled he had a right to express his opinion . Added to which I will add and it wasn’t just his conclusion .
In my opinion it's Amaral who has the problem.
He has made accusations which he cannot prove.
I would guess you do not agree.
Do I need to have a problem?
In my opinion it's Amaral who has the problem.
He has made accusations which he cannot prove.
I would guess you do not agree.
Then you would be wrong.
I don't see that Amaral has any problem regarding the McCanns.
He won the legal case brought against him.
You do seem to have a problem as regards Amaral.
In what way?
In what way?
Do you think it correct that he has made accusations which he cannot prove?
He has made statements that he has not as yet proved.
That does not necessarily mean those statements are untrue
In what way?
Do you think it correct that he has made accusations which he cannot prove?
Nor is he likely to prove..
However at the time of writing his book, he could not prove his accusation to be true.
Did he prove the truth in " The truth of the lie"
The answer seems to be no.
Nor is he likely to prove..
However at the time of writing his book, he could not prove his accusation to be true.
Did he prove the truth in " The truth of the lie"
The answer seems to be no.
Rebelo also seemed to believe in the ‘lie’.
Two experienced officers believing the same thing. What do you make of that ?
I think it reflects very badly on the PJ
He ? All by himself ?
[/i]A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
Where he concludes, after analyzing all the evidence gathered, that the child is dead and the parents were responsible for cadaver occultation, and the entire GROUP was lying since the first day of the investigation.
10 September 2007
(Processo: VOL ,X, p. 2587-2602)PJ Files
He is accusing Madeleine's parents of lying.
Is he not?
He is saying abduction is a lie. The McCanns said it's abduction. How would they know? They were blaming it on Tannerman. Shame SY got rid ?>)()<
It would be if Madeleine's parents have told the lie they are accused of telling?
Absolutely. But did Amaral say it? I have lost track of so many things that he said.
You didn’t make it clear what kind of fraud .
His conclusion was that they had taken part in the concealing of a body which is an actual offence iirc .
To repeat, HE wrote the book with that accusatory title..Didn’t the SC state he had a right to write the book ?
Did he collaborate with his colleagues when writing the book?
Do you know if they appreciated him doing so?
Your opinion on the fact that Rebelo appeared to also suspect the parents and their friends as his request for the rogatory interverviews and reconstitution shows ?
Rebelo also seemed to believe in the ‘lie’.
Two experienced officers believing the same thing. What do you make of that ?
While Rebelo didn't hang around in England for long enough to hear David Payne's interview because The PJ were leaking again in his absence.
Didn’t the SC state he had a right to write the book ?
What have his colleagues to do with what you’re accusing him of doing all by himself , apart from they came to the same conclusion he did ? He chose the title of the book . So, your point is just what ?
You simply won’t accept something even when I’ve provided a snippet from the PJfiles !
And you simply won't accept that I do not have to accept your "snippet" from the files.How can you not accept something proving what Chief Inspector TA said recorded in the official PJ files ?
Indeed he chose the title accusing Madeleine's parents of lying.
Did he explain the truth of that lie to your satisfaction?
Not really sure why that’s relevant.
How can you not accept something proving what Chief Inspector TA said recorded in the official PJ files ?
Rebelo appeared to have suspected The McCanns and their friends.
Do you accept every word in the files as proven?
An interesting question.
Nothing is actually proven because it hasn't been tested in a court of law.
However, the files are the official police records, (or part of them) of the case.
If you don't accept what they say, then it is impossible to accept anything.
It does appear that anything said or done by the McCanns which is recorded in the files can be questiond but other "evidence" has to be accepted.
I agree nothing is actually proven.
So perhaps it is correct not to accept anything in the files as being proven.
It appears to me that some sceptics have an unshakeable belief in the files.
So if the files are not proven did Amaral make the correct decision to write his book and Title it as he did?
It does appear that anything said or done by the McCanns which is recorded in the files can be questiond but other "evidence" has to be accepted.
I agree nothing is actually proven.
So perhaps it is correct not to accept anything in the files as being proven.
It appears to me that some sceptics have an unshakeable belief in the files.
So if the files are not proven did Amaral make the correct decision to write his book and Title it as he did?
It does appear that anything said or done by the McCanns which is recorded in the files can be questiond but other "evidence" has to be accepted.
I agree nothing is actually proven.
So perhaps it is correct not to accept anything in the files as being proven.
It appears to me that some sceptics have an unshakeable belief in the files.
So if the files are not proven did Amaral make the correct decision to write his book and Title it as he did?
Somewhat one-sided view there.
Robi, in particular, has spent a lot of time questioning many of the witness statements, not just those of the McCanns.
I'm sure if you care to look, you'll find others have done so too
What Amaral wrote was Libellous because it was not proven.
Or not, because it was a description of what the investigation thought act that time.
Stating something that you can't prove wouldn't go down well in Court. Except perhaps in Portugal.
Stating something that you can't prove wouldn't go down well in Court. Except perhaps in Portugal.
Stating something that you can't prove wouldn't go down well in Court. Except perhaps in Portugal.
Actually, I have a correction to make. Amaral has said the book was based on the conclusion of the investigation he has never said it was solely his opinion.Tavares' conclusion was dated "10 September 2007
This is not a case of one man accusing the McCanns of lying, it is the conclusion of the investigation at that time.
If Amaral was any Tom Dick or Harry and not part of that case, I doubt he would have not been able to defend against the McCann's libel claims.
Stating something that you can't prove wouldn't go down well in Court. Except perhaps in Portugal.
As the McCanns found to their cost, despite being in Portugal. They claimed the libel trial;OK some parts of their claim was rejected but the initial award was sufficient in any case.
was entirely focused on the effect of the libels on our other children and the damage that was done to the search for Madeleine.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/28/madeleine-mccann-parents-win-libel-damages-goncalo-amaral-trial
What they didn't say was that their claims for their other children were disallowed and they failed to prove any damage to the search for Madeleine.
OK some parts of their claim was rejected but the initial award was sufficient in any case.
OK some parts of their claim was rejected but the initial award was sufficient in any case.
But it was to redress the balance not as compensation for libel.
There had to be a tort committed for the balance to be redressed. What was the tort iyo if not libel?
It is fairly well laid out in the judgement which is posted a few times on this forum.
The judge of first instance ruled that, as a public official, Sr Amaral had profited improperly from information to which he was party and should not have done so as the obligation extended into his retirement.
The judge quite clearly states in her judgement the profit and interest should be given to the McCanns to redress the balance.
The higher courts did not agree with her judgement.
I doubt it ever existed or he's keeping it a closely guarded secret.
If he is, then he is guilty of perverting the course of justice.IMO
I started the thread because I have only read parts of the book and did wonder if someone who has read the entire book could reveal if he has accused the parents of only one lie or several lies.
And did he reveal "The Truth" to the satisfaction of anyone who has read it?
How did the award of Amaral's improper profits to the McCanns redress the balance if the breach of duty of reserve was the only offence? That in itself, did not make the McCanns victims who required compensating for anything above the cost of bringing the action in the first place.
if someone who has read the entire book could reveal if he has accused the parents of only one lie or several lies.
I would think the only sense to make of that - if the abduction didn't happen, it would have all been lies.
G A only gave his account of what he believed happened - his right it seems as an officer on the case at the time.
Do you think a police officer's "belief" is a fair substitute for evidence?
His belief was based on the evidence.
Such as?You can always claim there were discrepancies, and non cooperation with the reconstruction.
You can always claim there were discrepancies, and non cooperation with the reconstruction.
The parents had work to do.
Yes, the things that should have been done - yet wasn't.
If your child had gone - wouldn't you want to know where everyone was.
Especially all the backward and forwards that were done.
Seems not imo - the twins were still put in the creche next day.
Yes, the things that should have been done - yet wasn't.
If your child had gone - wouldn't you want to know where everyone was.
Especially all the backward and forwards that were done.
Seems not imo - the twins were still put in the creche next day.
" ... the twins were still put in the creche next day ... "
I find that in the circumstances, that must surely rank as one of the more bizarre statements I have ever heard.
Not even Amaral used his book to criticise the twins' parents for arranging appropriate cover while they were being interviewed by the police in a police station.
Is it your opinion they should have taken the eighteen month old children to the police station with them?
" ... the twins were still put in the creche next day ... "
I find that in the circumstances, that must surely rank as one of the more bizarre statements I have ever heard.
Not even Amaral used his book to criticise the twins' parents for arranging appropriate cover while they were being interviewed by the police in a police station.
Is it your opinion they should have taken the eighteen month old children to the police station with them?
Amended: to correct the ages of the twins. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10458.msg506548#msg506548 ... Which still begs the question ... should these infants have been taken to the police station?
Didn’t some of the group of friends stay behind to watch the children while the others were being questioned?
The McCanns were the only couple who went together. The others took turns. I think Dianne and Fiona cared for the McCann children and then Emma Knight took over later; she put them to bed that evening before their parents returned at 8.30 pm.That was news to me!
That was news to me!
" ... the twins were still put in the creche next day ... "
I find that in the circumstances, that must surely rank as one of the more bizarre statements I have ever heard.
Not even Amaral used his book to criticise the twins' parents for arranging appropriate cover while they were being interviewed by the police in a police station.
Is it your opinion they should have taken the eighteen month old children to the police station with them?
It's just the continuing criticism of all the decisions made by Madeleine's parents.
I thought the twins were twenty six months old.I think you are about right, they were born in Feb and the trouble is in May, is that 4 months? So they could actually be 28 months (2 years plus 4 months)
I think you are about right, they were born in Feb and the trouble is in May, is that 4 months? So they could actually be 28 months (2 years plus 4 months)
$6(&
Well they weren't 18 months old. They had had their second birthdays and were in the Toddlers 2 creche for children between 2 and 3 years old. It's nor an important point, but it highlights a lack of familiarity with the details of the case.
Vert true G - especially when the poster was having a go at another poster.
At the moment very happily the centre of my universe is about eighteen months old ... so I won't be opening my wrists about making a simple error which was easily rectified.
It doesn't alter the valid response I made to the original post ... which is what action the poster supposes should have been taken regarding the twins?
Was it appropriate to maintain their routine activities with the other children? ... or should they have been taken to a police station which in all likelihood had no facilities for toddlers?
It was the mcns who said maddie had been abducted - they did not know by who.
It could have been an inside job - yet they were quite happy to leave twins again.
Mind you they thought it was a safe place - seems they still thought it was a safe place.
At the moment very happily the centre of my universe is about eighteen months old ... so I won't be opening my wrists about making a simple error which was easily rectified.
It doesn't alter the valid response I made to the original post ... which is what action the poster supposes should have been taken regarding the twins?
Was it appropriate to maintain their routine activities with the other children? ... or should they have been taken to a police station which in all likelihood had no facilities for toddlers?
His belief was based on the evidence.
Could you please give me proof that one the McCann's give Madeleine Calpol [to help her sleep] the night she disappeared. Two Madeleine woke up because she heard her Dad talking outside. Three that Madeleine got up and climbed onto the sofa to look through the window. Four that Madeleine fell off the sofa hit her head and died. Five the McCann's hid her body.
None of the above are based on evidence as there isn't any.
The evidence suggested abduction to the McCanns. It didn't suggest abduction to the PJ. They were perfectly entitled to explore other possibilities, which is what they did.
Thays because we now know the PJ misunderstood the evidence...they thought the alerts confirmed cadaver for instance...the archiving report says that all the evidence used to make the mccanns arguidos was later not confirmed....da Carmo has confirmed...there is no evidence that suggests the mcCanns were involved...so there was no evidence...teh PJ my well have thought the parents were involved...but they had no evidence
Could you please give me proof that one the McCann's give Madeleine Calpol [to help her sleep] the night she disappeared. Two Madeleine woke up because she heard her Dad talking outside. Three that Madeleine got up and climbed onto the sofa to look through the window. Four that Madeleine fell off the sofa hit her head and died. Five the McCann's hid her body.
None of the above are based on evidence as there isn't any.
Could you please give me proof that one the McCann's give Madeleine Calpol [to help her sleep] the night she disappeared. Two Madeleine woke up because she heard her Dad talking outside. Three that Madeleine got up and climbed onto the sofa to look through the window. Four that Madeleine fell off the sofa hit her head and died. Five the McCann's hid her body.
None of the above are based on evidence as there isn't any.
"we"? You and who else?
is that reply because everything i have posted is fact...are you claiming the pj understanding of the evidence was correct when both the archiving report and Da Carmo contradicts them...the original investigation..the Almeida report...has been shown to be based on a fallacy...taht is fact...not opinion
this is from the report re the inspection of the mccanns car...its totat...total...codswallop
There was also a strong reaction of cadaver odour in the car used by the McCann (since May 27th 2007), which in conjugation with the blood dog and the forensics present in the 'Autos', that indicate the presence of Madeleine McCann's DNA in the booth of the car, are in order not to exclude a strong hypothesis that this car may have been used to transport the cadaver, 24 days after the death;
is that reply because everything i have posted is fact...are you claiming the pj understanding of the evidence was correct when both the archiving report and Da Carmo contradicts them...the original investigation..the Almeida report...has been shown to be based on a fallacy...taht is fact...not opinion
this is from the report re the inspection of the mccanns car...its totat...total...codswallop
There was also a strong reaction of cadaver odour in the car used by the McCann (since May 27th 2007), which in conjugation with the blood dog and the forensics present in the 'Autos', that indicate the presence of Madeleine McCann's DNA in the booth of the car, are in order not to exclude a strong hypothesis that this car may have been used to transport the cadaver, 24 days after the death;
The alerts to the McCann hire car at least have the advantage of forensic explanation which proved conclusively that there was not a single connection which could be made between Madeleine - the dog alerts - and the hire car.
For Amaral to promote otherwise in his book would probably be considered a lie and therefore libel in the majority of world jurisdictions.
You seemed to be using the Royal 'we', I just wondered who you were speaking for in addition to yourself, that's all. Not for me, obviously.
yet the Almeida report claimed a strong reaction to cadaver odour...............which is total fabrication
Yes. Do you want a link ?So you can read the book online but you can't buy a copy from the bookshop.
So you can read the book online but you can't buy a copy from the bookshop.
OK what link do you use?
is that reply because everything i have posted is fact...are you claiming the pj understanding of the evidence was correct when both the archiving report and Da Carmo contradicts them...the original investigation..the Almeida report...has been shown to be based on a fallacy...taht is fact...not opinion
this is from the report re the inspection of the mccanns car...its totat...total...codswallop
There was also a strong reaction of cadaver odour in the car used by the McCann (since May 27th 2007), which in conjugation with the blood dog and the forensics present in the 'Autos', that indicate the presence of Madeleine McCann's DNA in the booth of the car, are in order not to exclude a strong hypothesis that this car may have been used to transport the cadaver, 24 days after the death;
yet again you have failed to address the total misunderstanding of the important evidence by the pj
So you can read the book online but you can't buy a copy from the bookshop.
OK what link do you use?
You posted a statement of what you seem to believe are facts. I said you are not speaking for me.
OK so from the beginning I will identify what I think were lies.
I use this one - although there are several.
http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.com/2009/06/chapter-1.html
The chapters are to the left
OK so from the beginning I will identify what I think were lies.
You seemed to be using the Royal 'we', I just wondered who you were speaking for in addition to yourself, that's all. Not for me, obviously.He was speaking for all those people who can think logically and can draw coorrect evidence based conclusions. If that excludes you then, fair enough.
What's the point?
Pretty much a waste of time as at the end of the day it'll only be an opinion
He was speaking for all those people who can think logically and can draw coorrect evidence based conclusions. If that excludes you then, fair enough.
Do you mean he was speaking for you by any chance? That's two of you then.Yes I agree with him, why don’t you?
Yes I agree with him, why don’t you?
So far 'we' seems to consist of two people then.
So far 'we' seems to consist of two people then.Do you think it’s only two? How quaint. Perhaps you could explain why you don’t, or is that beyond or beneath you?
Do you think it’s only two? How quaint. Perhaps you could explain why you don’t, or is that beyond or beneath you?
I have evidence of one person agreeing with Davel so far. Perhaps others will emerge in time.
I have evidence of one person agreeing with Davel so far. Perhaps others will emerge in time.
It certainly doesn't...DA Carmo has said there is no evidence to suggest the mccsns, are involved... The archiving report said no evidence... SY are clearly not investigating the parents... You need to look at the evidence... And as regards evidence.. Almeidas report is seriously flawed
I have evidence of one person agreeing with Davel so far. Perhaps others will emerge in time.I suggest you refresh your memory of the dozens of newspaper articles that appeared when the case was archived, and other commentators who all concur that the PJ made an almighty cock-up and misunderstood (deliberately or otherwise) the evidence. If you think that opinion is held only by myself and Davel you are clearly living somewhere where only clouds and cuckoos abound.
All this about no evidence D - is only your opinion.
TTOTL is a legal book - wrote by a detective on the case.
not enough evidence - is not the same as no evidence as you keep saying.
Not enough evidence imo means there is evidence - of some sort.
The mcns haven't been cleared of involvement either.
Fresh anguish for Madeleine McCann's parents as Portugal's supreme court insists they haven't been proved innocent over their daughter's death
Kate and Gerry McCann always claimed they were innocent of any wrongdoing
Former Portuguese police chief Goncalo Amaral's allegations Maddie died in their holiday flat and her parents faked her abduction to cover up the tragedy
Court in Lisbon said lifting of 'suspect' status did not mean they're innocent
It isn't my opinion there is no evidence... It's the, statements from the, archiving despatch and DA Carmo.... If you are going to respond to my post then address the post...
Because there is no process to completely clear, someone..
So why are the mcns not completely cleared then - if that's the case.
give me the address for your post - and I will.
Has anyone disagreed with me
The Supreme Court in Portugal. Insufficient evidence, not no evidence.
The Supreme Court in Portugal. Insufficient evidence, not no evidence.
My statement was we understand the initial investigation misunderstood the evidence... Does anyone disagree with that... It is, an absolute fact
You said 'we' KNOW they misunderstood the evidence. You also said, in the same post;
"teh PJ my well have thought the parents were involved...but they had no evidence"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10458.msg506569#msg506569
Insufficient includes zero.... If I have no money I have insufficient funds, to buy anything
DA Carmos. ...no evidence... Came after the SC statement
You said 'we' KNOW they misunderstood the evidence. You also said, in the same post;Amaral’s interpretation of the evidence was that Madeleine died after a fall from the sofa having earlier been sedated and her body was transported 23 days later in the hire car. Please tell us which evidence he interpreted correctly?
"teh PJ my well have thought the parents were involved...but they had no evidence"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10458.msg506569#msg506569
Insufficient includes zero.... If I have no money I have insufficient funds, to buy anything
DA Carmos. ...no evidence... Came after the SC statement
I would rather listen to the experts on Portuguese law than to suspects, their spin doctors, journalists or people on Forums. The Supreme Court judges are the experts and they said;oh right, so are you now conceding that it’s not just Davel and I who share the same views about the PJ’s assessment of the evidence?
In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277° of the CPP).
The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277°-2)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15 Page 70
Not true. If a tin of beans costs 50p but you only have 45p then you have insufficient means to by those beans but you still have 45p.and if you only have 1p the same applies.
Amaral’s interpretation of the evidence was that Madeleine died after a fall from the sofa having earlier been sedated and her body was transported 23 days later in the hire car. Please tell us which evidence he interpreted correctly?
Amaral’s interpretation of the evidence was that Madeleine died after a fall from the sofa having earlier been sedated and her body was transported 23 days later in the hire car. Please tell us which evidence he interpreted correctly?
Not true. If a tin of beans costs 50p but you only have 45p then you have insufficient means to by those beans but you still have 45p.
??
Maybe it wasn't a body - but paraphernalia connected to a body
Is that the same car- that the boot was left open all night.
And if you have no money you have insufficient means to
So the ‘insufficient evidence’ is ambiguous.The, ECHR will no doubt clarify it.... As DA Carmo has already
I would rather listen to the experts on Portuguese law than to suspects, their spin doctors, journalists or people on Forums. The Supreme Court judges are the experts and they said;
In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277° of the CPP).
The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277°-2)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15 Page 70
Amaral’s interpretation of the evidence was that Madeleine died after a fall from the sofa having earlier been sedated and her body was transported 23 days later in the hire car. Please tell us which evidence he interpreted correctly?
The experts have been wrong before... DA Carmo clarified it... No evidence
They may be wrong but none of those saying they are wrong are qualified to judge. Do Carmo wasn't commenting on the archiving dispatch, so his statements are irrelevant.Are the M Canns not qualified to judge?
They may be wrong but none of those saying they are wrong are qualified to judge. Do Carmo wasn't commenting on the archiving dispatch, so his statements are irrelevant.
As part of the process of the investigation of Joanna Yeate's murder her landlord, Christopher Jefferies was detained by the police for questioning.Would the McCanns be Scot free if their back garden was in Avon and Somerset?
He was released without charge and the police belatedly issued an apology to him for not declaring his exoneration timeously.
________________________________________________________________________
Joanna Yeates murder police chief apologises to her landlord for suffering endured after detectives failed to publicly rule him out as a suspect
'The police did not make it clear publicly that you were no longer a suspect in the investigation as soon as you were released from bail on March 5, 2011.
'While it is not normal practice to make such a public statement, in the circumstances of the exceptional media attention your arrest attracted I acknowledge we should have considered this and I am very sorry for the suffering you experienced as a result.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2421800/Joanna-Yeates-murder-police-chief-apologises-landlord-suffering-endured-detectives-failed-publicly-rule-suspect.html
________________________________________________________________________
It is worthy of note that the person subsequently convicted of Joanna's murder had taken pains to implicate Mr Jefferies ...
During Tabak’s trial it was revealed the killer had implicated Mr Jefferies by phoning the police and making false claims.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2421800/Joanna-Yeates-murder-police-chief-apologises-landlord-suffering-endured-detectives-failed-publicly-rule-suspect.html
Mr Jefferies suffered unimaginable trauma as a result of what was a valid police investigation and if the police had been less competent at their job or had given up on seeking further evidence the ending could have been quite different.
The McCanns were also exonerated many years ago ... exactly as Mr Jefferies was more recently ... what a pity that Portugal did not behave as Avon and Somerset Chief Constable did instead of condoning a book of lies aimed in large part, at assassinating their reputations.
Would the McCanns be Scot free if their back garden was in Avon and Somerset?
What a shame they picked to eat and drink abroad.
Your post illustrates much the same mindset promoted within the pages of Amaral's book and elsewhere much as I posted here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10458.msg506720#msg506720Jesus wept.
Your post demonstrates that your focus ... as was his ... is concentrated entirely on Madeleine's parents ... yours in getting a cheap jibe in there at their expense ... his in seeing nothing but an "inside job" based like yours not on evidence but innuendo and hearsay. ("A badly told story ... To conclude, the police started to suspect the parents from the word go." Jose Manuel Oliveira http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm)
Your opinion , like mine is neither here nor there ... unfortunately the opinion of the senior investigator matters if he is disregarding the need for supporting evidence to hold and promote it.
Perhaps if less suspicion had been directed towards Madeleine's parents in the golden hours proportionally there may have been a better chance of finding what happened to her or even recovering her.
Are the M Canns not qualified to judge?
Whether there was insufficient evidence or no evidence? Clearly not. Their lawyer tried to use the archiving dispatch as if it was an acquittal, which is why the Supreme Court judges had to examine it and give their opinions.Think about it. They are supremely qualified to know whether or not their is evidence of their wrong doing, in fact they are the best placed people in the world to know, wouldn't you say?
You think the head of the Portuguese investigation statement is irrelevant.... He has knowledge of all the evidence to date..
And you think his statement is irrelevant ...that is a bizarre thing to say
Think about it. They are supremely qualified to know whether or not their is evidence of their wrong doing, in fact they are the best placed people in the world to know, wouldn't you say?
He never commented on the first investigation, just on the one he ran. (he's gone, by the way). The judges said there was insufficient evidence and that was why the case was archived. It was later reopened, we know not why. It is that investigation which Do Carmo commented on, assuring people that it had found no evidence against the McCanns and therefore they were not suspects.
It's not up to them to decide what evidence there is or what it suggests. They know only if they are guilty of wrongdoing or not. Sometimes the evidence convicts the innocent, no matter what they think about it.That may be so but it does not negate the fact that the innocent wrongly convicted are the best judges of the evidence and what it suggests.
Could you provide a cite that he was only commenting on his investigation.. That's plainly ridiculous... He said there is no evidence to suggest the mccanns were involved.... Are you seriously suggesting he was ignoring evidence found by the initial investigation ..that is clearly wrong
He flatly refuses to discuss the first investigation. He is speaking only about his team's work.He seems embarrassed by the first investigation... Are you suggesting he would ignore evidence from the first investigation... That seems a ridiculous suggestion... He said there is no evidence... That is clear
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wOKQTsrpd4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wOKQTsrpd4)
He flatly refuses to discuss the first investigation. He is speaking only about his team's work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wOKQTsrpd4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wOKQTsrpd4)
He never commented on the first investigation, just on the one he ran. (he's gone, by the way). The judges said there was insufficient evidence and that was why the case was archived. It was later reopened, we know not why. It is that investigation which Do Carmo commented on, assuring people that it had found no evidence against the McCanns and therefore they were not suspects.So, there was evidence against the McCanns in the first investigation but not in the second, is that what you’re saying?
Jesus wept.
Either start up a thread on your badly told story.
Or move on.
I have been offering to debate your point for a year now.
I take it you have nothing of substance to offer.
I fail to see what problem you have which prevents you from entering the debate whatever thread it may be on and whatever the topic may be.So - no badly told story.
It is an open forum where debate is encouraged and as a member the choice is yours about whether you participate or not.
At the moment we are discussing Amaral's book outlining the conduct of the investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance until the stage where he was sacked from the job ... so there is plenty of grist for the mill there.
Anyway ... as far as I am aware the art of debate is ...
- Person one ... makes a statement
- Person two replies either in the affirmative or the negative
- On this forum that is enough to open the debate and any who wish to join in are welcome to do so ... and any who prefer not to are equally welcome not to
This is not in my gift ... nor is it for you to make unrealistic demands of other members. You have responded negatively to my post ... so in effect you have already entered into what I define as debate.
My point is clear and as far as I can see on topic ... you have not made any point in return you have merely insulted ... I would interpret that as your problem with my posts appearing to be an internal one which I cannot assist you with as the problem and the answer to it lies with you.
He seems embarrassed by the first investigation... Are you suggesting he would ignore evidence from the first investigation... That seems a ridiculous suggestion... He said there is no evidence... That is clear
If you refuse to believe the evidence of your own ears there's no point in continuing the discussion imo.
If you refuse to believe the evidence of your own ears there's no point in continuing the discussion imo.Davel has never denied the evidence of his own ears to the best of my knowledge, how else does he keep his glasses on?
So, there was evidence against the McCanns in the first investigation but not in the second, is that what you’re saying?
They aren't my words. The Supreme Court Judges said; that there was insufficient evidence in the first investigation.
According to Pedro do Carmo there was no evidence pointing to the McCanns in the second investigation.
They aren't my words. The Supreme Court Judges said; that there was insufficient evidence in the first investigation.Can you not see how absurd that is? What happened to the evidence from the first investigation then? Did the second investigation ignore it or forget about it?
According to Pedro do Carmo there was no evidence pointing to the McCanns in the second investigation.
Can you not see how absurd that is? What happened to the evidence from the first investigation then? Did the second investigation ignore it or forget about it?Looking at what Do Carmo says and his facial expressions he is not convincing IMO.
Looking at what Do Carmo says and his facial expressions he is not convincing IMO.
Looking at what Do Carmo says and his facial expressions he is not convincing IMO.What's important is what he, says.. Not your opinion of it
They are your words... DC never mentioned the second investigation... So cite where he mentions the second investigation
I was hoping that someone who had read the book would give me their opinion.
I really was commenting on the title of the book and expressing my opinion on that.
I do hope you are giving the same guidance to those who comment on the SY investigation who are also commenting from "an uniformed opinion" and should have " full knowledge" of the investigation before making any comment.
Looking at what Do Carmo says and his facial expressions he is not convincing IMO.
So - no badly told story.
Perhaps we can move on.
He is being asked questions he doesn't want to answer.In your opinion.
What's important is what he, says.. Not your opinion of itWhen the police interview a suspect it is the facial expressions and body language that give clues as to the truthfulness of what is being said. OK that is an opinion too. What is being said could be untrue but the body language is a clue.
Indeed there is more than one ‘badly told story’ emanating from the bowels of the first investigation.
There is the one which is the subject of this thread.
There is the one detailed by Jose Manuel Oliveira and to which you appear to take such visceral exception despite its provenance.
I can understand that.
Jose Manuel Oliveira is in the position to categorically blow the whistle on the fact that the Judicial Police were in the business of utilising the media against individuals and that is precisely what he did.
In this case the victims of the leaks being the McCanns and their friends.
All initiated two days into Madeleine’s disappearance. Proving that it is a nonsense to say that Madeleine’s parents were not under close scrutiny right from the beginning. Just how much it deflected from interest in other avenues of investigation which might have led to Madeleine we will never know.
The investigation began with the press and it ended for Amaral with the press when he blew his cover as he mouthed off his chagrin to a journalist and was named and not as ‘a source close to the PJ’.
What the PJ thought was sufficient to justify making Kate and Gerry arguidos wasn’t … the proof of that being that there was nothing which justified charging them with any crime.
What he was unable to do using the law he undertook to do using the power of the word processor and so he came up with the esoteric and inventive title for his book.
Exactly what is your objection to my reference to the Diario of the Noticias: "Headline: a badly told story." Have I touched on it here?
When the police interview a suspect it is the facial expressions and body language that give clues as to the truthfulness of what is being said. OK that is an opinion too. What is being said could be untrue but the body language is a clue.
Indeed there is more than one ‘badly told story’ emanating from the bowels of the first investigation.
There is the one which is the subject of this thread.
There is the one detailed by Jose Manuel Oliveira and to which you appear to take such visceral exception despite its provenance.
I can understand that.
Jose Manuel Oliveira is in the position to categorically blow the whistle on the fact that the Judicial Police were in the business of utilising the media against individuals and that is precisely what he did.
In this case the victims of the leaks being the McCanns and their friends.
All initiated two days into Madeleine’s disappearance. Proving that it is a nonsense to say that Madeleine’s parents were not under close scrutiny right from the beginning. Just how much it deflected from interest in other avenues of investigation which might have led to Madeleine we will never know.
The investigation began with the press and it ended for Amaral with the press when he blew his cover as he mouthed off his chagrin to a journalist and was named and not as ‘a source close to the PJ’.
What the PJ thought was sufficient to justify making Kate and Gerry arguidos wasn’t … the proof of that being that there was nothing which justified charging them with any crime.
What he was unable to do using the law he undertook to do using the power of the word processor and so he came up with the esoteric and inventive title for his book.
Exactly what is your objection to my reference to the Diario of the Noticias: "Headline: a badly told story." Have I touched on it here?
They aren't my words. The Supreme Court Judges said; that there was insufficient evidence in the first investigation.
According to Pedro do Carmo there was no evidence pointing to the McCanns in the second investigation.
Just how much it deflected from interest in other avenues of investigation which might have led to Madeleine we will never know.
Same as if the mccns had been made suspect in the beginning - instead of them being wrapped in cotton wool.
GA
You admitted the possibility that the children had been given sedatives.
The twins, with the lights on, with the lights off, with a crowd of people going in and out, slept until 2 a.m., when they were carried into another apartment. Even then, they continued to sleep. That sleep is not normal.
But the Judiciária did nothing.
Once again, we were inhibited. We thought about asking the parents to test their hair, in order to understand whether there were sedatives, but as soon as it was found out, it would be said that we were suspecting the parents, and it was being avoided at all costs that it became public that those suspicions existed.
as there is no evidence against the mccanns I dont see how making them suspects would make any difference...the fact is amaral and the rest of his team thought there was evidence ...the archiving report corrects them...as does Da Carmo
Indeed there is more than one ‘badly told story’ emanating from the bowels of the first investigation.EITHER START A THREAD TO DISCUSS THIS
There is the one which is the subject of this thread.
There is the one detailed by Jose Manuel Oliveira and to which you appear to take such visceral exception despite its provenance.
I can understand that.
Jose Manuel Oliveira is in the position to categorically blow the whistle on the fact that the Judicial Police were in the business of utilising the media against individuals and that is precisely what he did.
In this case the victims of the leaks being the McCanns and their friends.
All initiated two days into Madeleine’s disappearance. Proving that it is a nonsense to say that Madeleine’s parents were not under close scrutiny right from the beginning. Just how much it deflected from interest in other avenues of investigation which might have led to Madeleine we will never know.
The investigation began with the press and it ended for Amaral with the press when he blew his cover as he mouthed off his chagrin to a journalist and was named and not as ‘a source close to the PJ’.
What the PJ thought was sufficient to justify making Kate and Gerry arguidos wasn’t … the proof of that being that there was nothing which justified charging them with any crime.
What he was unable to do using the law he undertook to do using the power of the word processor and so he came up with the esoteric and inventive title for his book.
Exactly what is your objection to my reference to the Diario of the Noticias: "Headline: a badly told story." Have I touched on it here?
Indeed there is more than one ‘badly told story’ emanating from the bowels of the first investigation.
There is the one which is the subject of this thread.
There is the one detailed by Jose Manuel Oliveira and to which you appear to take such visceral exception despite its provenance.
I can understand that.
Jose Manuel Oliveira is in the position to categorically blow the whistle on the fact that the Judicial Police were in the business of utilising the media against individuals and that is precisely what he did.
In this case the victims of the leaks being the McCanns and their friends.
All initiated two days into Madeleine’s disappearance. Proving that it is a nonsense to say that Madeleine’s parents were not under close scrutiny right from the beginning. Just how much it deflected from interest in other avenues of investigation which might have led to Madeleine we will never know.
The investigation began with the press and it ended for Amaral with the press when he blew his cover as he mouthed off his chagrin to a journalist and was named and not as ‘a source close to the PJ’.
What the PJ thought was sufficient to justify making Kate and Gerry arguidos wasn’t … the proof of that being that there was nothing which justified charging them with any crime.
What he was unable to do using the law he undertook to do using the power of the word processor and so he came up with the esoteric and inventive title for his book.
Exactly what is your objection to my reference to the Diario of the Noticias: "Headline: a badly told story." Have I touched on it here?
PDC never used the words ..second investigation....imo you are making things up..
His words are there for all to hear...there is no evidence at this point that suggests the involvement of the mcccanns..
that is crystal clear...no mention whatsoever of the second investigation
Channel 4 newsman Alex Thomson said the media coverage of Maddie made him sick. He said "I've been sickened by the way the media have allowed themselves to be taken for a full-scale ride by the McCanns."
Let me help you;
"When we came up with the team to review the case ...... at that point the McCanns were no suspects to us". That was in 2012 if I recall correctly.
"There is no fact at this point (2017) or evidence that they were involved"
He is perfectly clear. He is speaking only about the PJ's approach from 2012 onwards.
To me there are many things to question though. Where was the wall in the tapas bar that Jane Tanner says she put her baby monitor? That is one that occurred to me this morning.
Could anyone find it for me please.
Reply “Err, no I think the only thing that I have thought inretrospect is the fact that I went down to test the baby monitorthat first, first night. I mean sometimes I put, because we wereworried about the, what do you call it, the reach of the babymonitor, I sometimes put it, there was a wall behind me so I’dput it on there because it was slightly, slightly nearer becauseit’d start sort of squealing at times so, so that’s the onlyother thing I can think of because you know it wasn’t, sometimeswe wouldn’t have been sitting at, I didn’t have it, so actuallysitting on the table it was, it was on the wall where the tile(inaudible) were I sometimes had it on the wall there.”
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Just how much it deflected from interest in other avenues of investigation which might have led to Madeleine we will never know.
Same as if the mccns had been made suspect in the beginning - instead of them being wrapped in cotton wool.
GA
You admitted the possibility that the children had been given sedatives.
The twins, with the lights on, with the lights off, with a crowd of people going in and out, slept until 2 a.m., when they were carried into another apartment. Even then, they continued to sleep. That sleep is not normal.
But the Judiciária did nothing.
Once again, we were inhibited. We thought about asking the parents to test their hair, in order to understand whether there were sedatives, but as soon as it was found out, it would be said that we were suspecting the parents, and it was being avoided at all costs that it became public that those suspicions existed.
Brietta you say "right from the beginning" do you mean the first week or the first moments of the investigation.
Let me help you;
"When we came up with the team to review the case ...... at that point the McCanns were no suspects to us". That was in 2012 if I recall correctly.
"There is no fact at this point (2017) or evidence that they were involved"
He is perfectly clear. He is speaking only about the PJ's approach from 2012 onwards.
No it isn't... That's just your opinion and IMO it it clearly wrong... In may 2017...he states there is no evidence..
It's clear you prefer to believe your opinion of what was said rather than listening to the actual words spoken by Pedro do Carmo.
So the Judicial Police didn't bother to carry out a review??
Snip
" ... If the PJ requested the reopening, it has good motives to do so." Portuguese Justice Minister Paula Teixeira da Cruz
Portuguese law officials and senior officers in the PJ have been acutely aware of criticism of the initial police investigation and insist they are determined to solve the case.
Ms Teixeira da Cruz urged people to be "proud" of the work being done by the PJ, which she insisted had not been idle in seeking to solve the mystery.
For a time Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, were seen as arguidos or suspects but that status was lifted. Now they are being kept fully informed of all developments and were given a personal briefing of the work of the PJ in Lisbon last week. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/439464/Portuguese-police-held-their-own-Madeleine-McCann-reconstruction
I posted the transcript of Pedro do Carmo saying 'review'' so I don't understand why you think I've overlooked the fact. Allegedly they decided to review the evidence following meetings with Operation Grange;
Following a meeting of the Scotland Yard with the PJ's directorate, it was assigned to the section of investigation and criminal prevention of Oporto the task of liaison with the English in the re-analysis of the case elements.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/59march12/JORNAL_DE_NOTICIAS_09_03_2012.htm
I posted the transcript of Pedro do Carmo saying 'review'' so I don't understand why you think I've overlooked the fact. Allegedly they decided to review the evidence following meetings with Operation Grange;
Following a meeting of the Scotland Yard with the PJ's directorate, it was assigned to the section of investigation and criminal prevention of Oporto the task of liaison with the English in the re-analysis of the case elements.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/59march12/JORNAL_DE_NOTICIAS_09_03_2012.htm
You appear to misunderstand the crux of my posts regarding the significance of the the Judicial Police feeding the media with suspicion with leaks such as "Badly told story" in the golden hours of Madeleine;s disappearance ... which at least one member of this forum appears to abhor for some reason he refuses to defend.
He was not the only one to rush to judgement at the time. But apparently his bosses reprimanded him for it. http://themaddiecasefiles.com/exclusive-tv-man-s-sick-jibe-at-maddie-parents-09--t15414.html
However ... the quote you posted is from early days in 2007 ... is there anything more recent? Do you know, for example, if he reiterated his comment? Perhaps on twitter?
I ask … for the simple reason that I know that seven years down the line in the midst of his report on attempted genocide taking place against minority peoples of northern Iraq by ‘Islamic State’ the first (rather inappropriate, I thought) response was an attempt to recruit him.
The first response made to his rather heavy subject on the annihilation of whole peoples was as follows ...
teresa
Hi there Alex, just trying to get a message to you. I think you are a real hero speaking out about the farce that is the Mccann case. Please if you have nothing else to loose but your good name please come and look at the Justice for Madeleine site. We are 30.000 plus strong alone plus there are many other sites with members just waiting for someone to go against the MSM’s storytelling. We, J. f M. base all our thoughs on the police files both U:K: and Portuguise. A little girl died and has not been put to rest.. the parent have done so well from this..something is just not right. Please, just come and read the files we have….costs you nothing!
8 Aug 2014 at 9:25 pm
‘Out on the mountain right now, it is genocide’ https://www.channel4.com/news/by/alex-thomson/blogs/is-yezidis-kurds-iraq-downing-street-protest
Wonder if that gave him food for thought ... as much as I am being given it ... by the denial and reluctance to debate the fruits of Amaral's thinking as outlined in his book 🤪
If that review had shown evidence against thr mccanns then DC would not be in a position to say there was no evidence
Chapter 3: "All of the video recordings from the tourist complex - hotels, banks, pharmacies, supermarkets and service stations -, including those from the CCTV cameras of two motorways - one leading to Lagos and one linking Lagos and Spain -, will be viewed."
So there was video footage!
They are still two entirely separate investigations with separate personnel and conclusions. Therefore Pedro do Carmo's words cannot be seen as applying to the first investigation. It's like you and I; we can both read the same information and arrive at different conclusions.in order for DC to investigate he would need to look at all the facts and statements from the first investigation...to suggest othwerwise is ridiculous...imo you are simply in denial re the evidence as you were on another thread
No idea what all that has to be with the fact that in 2007 Alex Thomson, who had an insider’s view, believed the press was being played a merry dance by the McCanns. Time does not change that.
We've seen stills from two service stations ... one having been shown to Kate and Gerry at the time hence the 'mad car dash' and one which was not shown to them and which they did not see until the files were released ...
Snip
CCTV images were also withheld from the couple.
They were shown one, take in a petrol station near Praia da Luz on May 4, of a young girl holding hands with a woman, but they were able to quickly rule it out.
A second image of a girl at a Repsol petrol station near Albufeira on the same day was not shown to the McCanns.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2508744/Madeleine-McCann-police-didnt-reveal-sighting-of-Maddy.html
I cannot imagine why the parents of a missing child were denied the opportunity of being able to rule that young girl in or out of the inquiry had they been able to view the footage.
in order for DC to investigate he would need to look at all the facts and statements from the first investigation...to suggest othwerwise is ridiculous...imo you are simply in denial re the evidence as you were on another thread
He is not the only journalist who was critical of the McCanns at the time ... he may not be the only one whose opinion was altered by the fullness of time ...
David Jones had his suspicions about the McCanns but two years on, he confesses he was horribly wrong
By DAVID JONES FOR THE DAILY MAIL
UPDATED: 07:49, 4 May 2009
Snip
Like every other reporter who has striven to solve this perplexing case, not to mention all those expensive private investigators and the inept Portuguese police, I am no nearer to knowing the answers today than I was on that May afternoon when I first arrived in Praia da Luz.
But over recent months, having sifted again through my notebooks, scoured the internet, revisited old contacts and observed Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry, campaigning relentlessly and indefatigably for their daughter's return, I have come to one definite conclusion.
It is that whatever became of the slumbering Madeleine on that dreadful Thursday night, her parents played no part in her disappearance.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1176448/David-Jones-suspicions-McCanns-years-confesses-horribly-wrong.html
I think the Portuguese might be rather offended by the presumption it was necessary for them to wing it on the coat-tails of others in what was very much their own business and jurisdiction.
It appears you may have missed the following from the link I provided earlier ...
Snip
The exercise was the culmination of months of work by four Portuguese detectives based in Porto in the north of the country, who are directly working for the highly respected senior officer Helen Monteiro, an expert on abduction cases.
__________________________________________________________
In Portugal, Ms Monteiro is seen as the driving force finally to get the Madeleine case files re-opened after five years, rather than through the efforts of Scotland Yard. She and her team are working separately from the Yard, although there is close liaison between the two.
Yesterday Portuguese Justice Minister Paula Teixeira da Cruz said the decision to reopen the case, taken last week, was due to the work of the Policia Judiciaria and not because of pressure from Scotland Yard. She said: "The PJ developed diligences that allowed for this process to be reopened. Often there are almost perfect crimes and not all of them are discovered all over the world. If the PJ requested the reopening, it has good motives to do so."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/439464/Portuguese-police-held-their-own-Madeleine-McCann-reconstruction
At a certain point in this case, after the Express settled out of court, if you wanted to write anything about this case then it had to be McCann friendly.
As to Thomson, you have absolutely nothing to suggest that he has ever changed his mind regarding the McCanns. I do know that privately several journalists who have written supportive articles in the past have expressed misgivings. You’d be very surprised at at least two.
cite for several journalistsexpressing misgivings
The part about the efits is certainly ironic if we consider the lack of urgency with which the parents treated their own PI’s efits.
Further the girl in Amsterdam couldn’t have been Madeleine because weren’t we told that Madeleine hated being called Maddy and would say indignantly that her name was Madeleine ?
Of course making the PJ look as if they hampered the investigation took the focus from the question being asked by the media at the time of Kate re why didn’t answer the 40 plus questions.
in order for DC to investigate he would need to look at all the facts and statements from the first investigation...to suggest othwerwise is ridiculous...imo you are simply in denial re the evidence as you were on another thread
Both OG and the PJ revisited the evidence and seemed to interpreted it differently than the first investigators did. That's no secret and I'm not denying it. What I am saying is that I don't know who was/is right.
I know that the initial investigation misunderstood the important evidence....According to almeida as reported by the Guardian.....the main evidence for the first investigation was the dog alerts...so we know they did not understand the evidence...as the alerts had no evidential value
Chapter 3 " I demand to be informed very regularly and, before going home, I call on the police on duty to check that all urgent measures are underway. The head of the Guard has already alerted the police authorities at Faro airport and the control post set up on the Guadiana* bridge."What control post?
Is it true someone alerted the control post on the Guadiana* bridge?
And yet it would appear that the initial investigation had serious doubts regarding the abduction thesis prior to the dogs alerts.
You do understand the word privately don’t you Davel ? To name them would be to betray their trust.
What control post?
In Schengen you drive straight across borders without controls.
THIS IS BASIC AND CRITICAL.
One could DRIVE out of Portugal into Spain to avoid checks of any substantial kind.
For those who favour abduction, this is just one factor in favour of abduction. Gone before the 'golden hour' even started.
Start the clock running with Gerry's alleged check. I know for a fact I can get my grandson across the Portugal-Spain border, BEFORE the McCanns even had the police called. I would have 9.05 approx, to 10.41, to GNR at OC roughly 11.05.
That's a 2 hour window of opportunity.
So where was this alleged border control post?
The control post the PJ set upWhat an obvious elephant trap.
What an obvious elephant trap.
Do not pass GO. Do not collect 200 Escudos.
We've seen stills from two service stations ... one having been shown to Kate and Gerry at the time hence the 'mad car dash' and one which was not shown to them and which they did not see until the files were released ...
Snip
CCTV images were also withheld from the couple.
They were shown one, take in a petrol station near Praia da Luz on May 4, of a young girl holding hands with a woman, but they were able to quickly rule it out.
A second image of a girl at a Repsol petrol station near Albufeira on the same day was not shown to the McCanns.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2508744/Madeleine-McCann-police-didnt-reveal-sighting-of-Maddy.html
I cannot imagine why the parents of a missing child were denied the opportunity of being able to rule that young girl in or out of the inquiry had they been able to view the footage.
you are making no sense as usual...amaral referred to a control post that had been SET UP...ie not there all the timeyou are making no sense as usual.
you are making no sense as usual.
Kindly provide the cite for your support of amaral.
Or move on.
No need to imagine, it's explained;
it was determined that the minor shown there presented differences from the missing child, which gave rise to concluding that it was not the same person. The principal difference resides in the fact that the pictured child had hair half-way down her back, manifestly longer than that of the missing child, there having been no time/opportunity for the hair to have grown to that length
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SERVICE_INFORMATION.htm
Chapter 3 " I demand to be informed very regularly and, before going home, I call on the police on duty to check that all urgent measures are underway. The head of the Guard has already alerted the police authorities at Faro airport and the control post set up on the Guadiana* bridge."Yup.
thats amaral from his book
Like everything else this has already been discussed on the forum ... the high camera angle was discussed and the incline of the child's head.
What a pity the decision was taken not to allow the people who knew her best to view the moving CCTV image.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_352xV8C14UE/S1M9o1shOYI/AAAAAAAAEkw/66WeIArChes/s320/last_photo.jpg)
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44895000/jpg/_44895636_746dfc37-8742-4a13-8df3-f92d00a132e8.jpg)
I wonder why just one of the photos is shown? The other one, showing the back view, demonstrates the difference in length and colour of the hair.
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_144.jpg)
They are still two entirely separate investigations with separate personnel and conclusions. Therefore Pedro do Carmo's words cannot be seen as applying to the first investigation. It's like you and I; we can both read the same information and arrive at different conclusions.
Chapter 3: "All of the video recordings from the tourist complex - hotels, banks, pharmacies, supermarkets and service stations -, including those from the CCTV cameras of two motorways - one leading to Lagos and one linking Lagos and Spain -, will be viewed."
So there was video footage!
doubts but no evidence...
Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida said he believed the British child had died in her family's apartment in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz on the day she went missing. He told the court the main evidence for this was the findings of British police sniffer dogs sent to Portugal to examine the flat. The McCanns' lawyer, Isabel Duarte, challenged this claim, arguing that the results from sniffer dogs did not constitute proof and were not allowed as evidence in the case.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560443/Madeleine-sniffer-dogs-detect-scent-of-body.html
I think this pretty well proves the initial investiagation was incompetent
EITHER START A THREAD TO DISCUSS THIS
or move on.
Boring.
What control post?
In Schengen you drive straight across borders without controls.
THIS IS BASIC AND CRITICAL.
One could DRIVE out of Portugal into Spain to avoid checks of any substantial kind.
For those who favour abduction, this is just one factor in favour of abduction. Gone before the 'golden hour' even started.
Start the clock running with Gerry's alleged check. I know for a fact I can get my grandson across the Portugal-Spain border, BEFORE the McCanns even had the police called. I would have 9.05 approx, to 10.41, to GNR at OC roughly 11.05.
That's a 2 hour window of opportunity.
So where was this alleged border control post?
Bit of food for thought on Amaral's book which after all is the topic,he believes Madeleine died in 5a,in all the years since no one but no one has produced anything nor officially said anything to clearly show that to be a lie.
More important is that there is absolutely nothing to support his contention.
I understand that you have nothing to show this is true...so I have no reason to believe it
I wonder why just one of the photos is shown? The other one, showing the back view, demonstrates the difference in length and colour of the hair.
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_144.jpg)
Just googling,there seems to be two Guadiana bridge crossing's are they near one another?
You never heard of hair extensions ??? 8(0(*
Sounds fair. Doesn't change that it's true though.Just as it's true that Gerry was very well liked and popular at Leicester when my son was there
Just as it's true that Gerry was very well liked and popular at Leicester when my son was there
Just as it's true Maddie was abducted by stranger
I'm sure we'd all like a cite for that last part.
You never heard of hair extensions ??? 8(0(*
Does this mean we should add rogue hair stylists to the list of possible abductors ?
You know that for certain because?
No idea what all that has to be with the fact that in 2007 Alex Thomson, who had an insider’s view, believed the press was being played a merry dance by the McCanns. Time does not change that.Perhaps in 2007 he’d fallen for all the anti-McCann crap emanating out of Portugal and believed the McCanns must have been guilty. Just a thought.
Camera angle??
If you think it was fine to rely on an assessment made by someone who had never laid eyes on the missing child in preference to her parents that is entirely up to you.
I think it is plain daft.
They are still two entirely separate investigations with separate personnel and conclusions. Therefore Pedro do Carmo's words cannot be seen as applying to the first investigation. It's like you and I; we can both read the same information and arrive at different conclusions.May I ask why you think the Portuguese would ignore all the so-called evidence against the McCanns from the first investigation? Is it those pesky Brits bullying them to do you think?
Bit of food for thought on Amaral's book which after all is the topic,he believes Madeleine died in 5a,in all the years since no one but no one has produced anything nor officially said anything to clearly show that to be a lie.
You do understand the word privately don’t you Davel ? To name them would be to betray their trust.@)(++(*
PDC has said there is no evidence against the mccanns... The archiving report said no evidence of any crime by the mccanns....
Who would you expect to say the initial investigation was on the wrong track
Yup.Is Amaral telling more porkies then?
So now prove it.
The head of the Guard was?
amaral (sic)
OR MOVE ON.
If you bother to read the written word you'll see I made no mention of the McCann's.only that Amaral said she had died in 5a,I'll repeat no one but no one has said any different,not one of them has said they believe Madeleine was alive when she left 5a that night,even Redwood said she may not have left 5a alive.So bearing that in mind Amaral may be right.
The control post the PJ set upWhere does it say in the file a control post was set up?
you are making no sense as usual...amaral referred to a control post that had been SET UP...ie not there all the timeDid he do that himself?
Where does it say in the file a control post was set up?
Chapter 3 " I demand to be informed very regularly and, before going home, I call on the police on duty to check that all urgent measures are underway. The head of the Guard has already alerted the police authorities at Faro airport and the control post set up on the Guadiana* bridge."We are trying to establish as to whether there are lies in his book. So you can't use the book as it own witness.
thats amaral from his book
@)(++(*
There really should be a forum rule that people should not be allowed to pretend they know something the rest of us don’t to try and win a point.
We are trying to establish as to whether there are lies in his book. So you can't use the book as it own witness.
Look at his claims about the dogs... Claiming Eddie found a body under a slab of concrete at Jersey... There are more I've quoted many timesI haven't got that far as yet.
Where does it say in the file a control post was set up?Surely as you introduced
Surely as you introducedI had my doubts that a control post was set up specifically for Madeleine McCann.
a control post between Portugal and Spain
you will be able to answer my question as to
where this control post was???
'Pretend' sounds like an accusation of lying to me. I think all information should have cites supporting it, but I can think of at least two others who sometimes claim to have knowledge but don't offer supporting evidence.Fair enough. I myself do know something about the McCanns that would make your head explode (not literally). I was told it in confidence by an ex-colleague of Gerry’s.. Of course I cannot reveal who that was or what the revelation is, suffice it to say, it would drastically alter your understanding of the case. 8(>((
Yup.
So now prove it.
The head of the Guard was?
amaral (sic)
OR MOVE ON.
Fair enough. I myself do know something about the McCanns that would make your head explode (not literally). I was told it in confidence by an ex-colleague of Gerry’s.. Of course I cannot reveal who that was or what the revelation is, suffice it to say, it would drastically alter your understanding of the case. 8(>((Has it opened your mind already?
Chapter 7 "Before the search, we want to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him as the individual she saw on the night of the disappearance. She is sitting inside an unmarked car, whose tinted windows allow her to see out without being spotted. The vehicle is parked at the exact spot where she was on the night of May 3rd. Robert Murat, anonymous amongst plain clothes police officers, goes up the road in the same way as the alleged abductor. Jane Tanner is adamant: it certainly is Robert Murat that she saw that night. She definitely recognises his way of walking. But does he resemble the description she painted previously?
Porkies?
@)(++(*
There really should be a forum rule that people should not be allowed to pretend they know something the rest of us don’t to try and win a point.
Sounds a good idea.
Chapter 10
"During this encounter, Kate tells Y.M. that her daughter disappeared thirteen hours ago. If you do the calculation, that means that Madeleine would have been abducted at 9pm and not at 10pm. That contradiction is important; it has to be taken into account in analysing the abduction scenarios that the McCanns and their friends will relate to the police.
As far as the McCanns were concerned the abduction was at 9:15 PM as sighted by Jane Tanner so that is correctly stated as "13 hours ago"
Half way through and no downright lies found in this 'book of lies'? Well I never!
Sounds a good idea.
You might be surprised who the major offenders are
I can think of two and I am not surprised. ^*&&
That's because you don't look at the bigger picture
I've found several.... As I have already posted
If it can be found in the files it's not a lie. If it's his opinion it's not a lie.If it's stated as a fact... And not in the files... And is not true... Then it's a lie
I believe it is at variance with Jane's statement in her rogatory interview.
If it can be found in the files it's not a lie. If it's his opinion it's not a lie.So if you write a book in the first person on any subject at all, it’s not a lie? What piffle.
Actually I do. Do you?
Then post examples, as I have done
Yourself saying your son went to medical school in Leicester where Gerry was well liked, for saying you have experience in sedation because of being a dentist, also Sadie for saying that Joanna was alive in 2012.
I probably could go on.
How often does the phrase “in my opinion” appear in the book?
You need to read the post by VS.... It's about posters having inside knowledge of the case...cite for me claiming to be a dentist... I've never made that claim here... I do have experience in sedation... Other posters have made claims about their professional life.. My son was, a t Leicester Medical school... I dont supply any evidence so I don't insist anyone believes what I say. .however I have been outed so the facts are easy to check and will be found to be true
Have YOU been outed or has some poor sap been named as you Davel? If you are really outed why so coy?
The words 'honest interpretation' appear in his introduction. He was as entitled to interpret the evidence as anyone else was in my opinion.
Yourself saying your son went to medical school in Leicester where Gerry was well liked, for saying you have experience in sedation because of being a dentist, also Sadie for saying that Joanna was alive in 2012.
I probably could go on.
Clarence is my Cousin, docha know. I never said that.So you have a cousin called Clarence!
So you have a cousin called Clarence!
The words 'honest interpretation' appear in his introduction. He was as entitled to interpret the evidence as anyone else was in my opinion.
He did more than that... He claimed as fact things that simply were not true
If he believed they were true then he wasn't lying. A lie is a statement used intentionally for the purpose of deception.
An Opinion can be Untrue.
Of course, but it doesn't mean it's a lie.
If he believed they were true then he wasn't lying. A lie is a statement used intentionally for the purpose of deception.That's why I have avoided the word....
Courts do actually decide on this sort of thing. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.
The courts have decided in this case.
And got it wrong, In My Opinion.
Legally? hard to argue against the Portuguse law unless you have absolute knowledge of their laws and workings or morally?
A Court Decision is still only an Opinion.
Based on law.
Judging by remarks faith made Re my wife.... I've been outed
I'm not in the slightest coy... So cite for me claiming to be a dentist here
It's quite funny... When my outing resulted in many of my claims being confirmed... Some posters want to un out me
As I don't believe you (not that it matters) here is a cite.
a dentist who worked for me had a problem...the sun took up the story...I was asked to comment and expalined taht due to patient confidentiality I couldnt comment...the sun said....Boss ...*** ******.....refused to comment under the headline ...Dentist broke my jaw......which wasnt true
&^&*%http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10052.msg484695#msg484695
Just one for you. There are others.
Legally? hard to argue against the Portuguse law unless you have absolute knowledge of their laws and workings or morally?
A Court Decision is still only an Opinion.
But legally binding and, in this case, allegedly very expensive.
On what Law do you think The Judge of The Court of The First Instance based her Opinion?
But not just yet. We shall have to wait and see what The ECHR has to say.
The one which prohibits the Judiciary from doing certain things. She said;
the illegality of the conduct of the defendant Goncalo Amaral
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0 Page 44
Her argument was rejected by the Appeal Court.
The ECHR cannot overturn decisions made in a national court. The McCanns were ordered to pay the costs of those they sued and pay them they must.
The ECHR cannot overturn decisions made in a national court. The McCanns were ordered to pay the costs of those they sued and pay them they must.
Won't it be fun if The ECHR agrees with her.
On what Law do you think The Judge of The Court of The First Instance based her Opinion?
Unlike some I don't second guess.
What ever you might opine its in black and white that the appeal courts upheld Amarals appeal what is in doubt is if any thing as reached the ECHR.
Yourself saying your son went to medical school in Leicester where Gerry was well liked, for saying you have experience in sedation because of being a dentist, also Sadie for saying that Joanna was alive in 2012.
I probably could go on.
I believe that the photo of the girl in the orange top in the Zinat, Morrocco photo, showing ?Madeleine being carried on a wo/mans back is almost certainly Joana C. but that wasn't in 2012 was it?
It was in September 2007
But we don't know if the SC correctly applied the law correctly..... That will be decided by the ECHR
Unlike some I don't second guess.
What ever you might opine its in black and white that the appeal courts upheld Amarals appeal what is in doubt is if any thing as reached the ECHR.
As I don't believe you (not that it matters) here is a cite.
a dentist who worked for me had a problem...the sun took up the story...I was asked to comment and expalined taht due to patient confidentiality I couldnt comment...the sun said....Boss ...*** ******.....refused to comment under the headline ...Dentist broke my jaw......which wasnt true
&^&*%http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10052.msg484695#msg484695
Just one for you. There are others.
Still no citeAnd it will stay that way.
Of course, but it doesn't mean it's a lie.In the McCanns’ opinion Madeleine was abducted, glad you agree that doesn’t mean it’s a lie.
And it will stay that way.
In the McCanns’ opinion Madeleine was abducted, glad you agree that doesn’t mean it’s a lie.
They can correct the decision and show it be wrong ..will that not be a humiliation for prtugal and amaral if that happens
Well if you want to discuss pie in the sky, how humiliated will the McCanns be if their application is/has been rejected. No-one libelled them and no-one breached their human rights. All that time, effort and Fund money wasted trying to prove they have been victimised.Do you remember your post explaining what a humiliation it would be not just for amaral but for Portugal too if the Portuguese courts had been found to have violated the mccanns human rights..
Well if you want to discuss pie in the sky, how humiliated will the McCanns be if their application is/has been rejected. No-one libelled them and no-one breached their human rights. All that time, effort and Fund money wasted trying to prove they have been victimised.How could they NOT have been libelled?! Of course they were!
In the McCanns’ opinion Madeleine was abducted, glad you agree that doesn’t mean it’s a lie.
If it's an honest opinion it may be right or wrong. If it's not true and they know that then it's a deliberate lie.
How could they NOT have been libelled?! Of course they were!
Your opinion, like the McCann's and Duarte's, has been rejected.
Your opinion, like the McCann's and Duarte's, has been rejected.Really? Please supply a cite for “the McCanns were not libelled” then.
The same applies to amaral...
To claim the mccanns have lied is simply pie in the sky... Imo
We do know for certain amaral has said things thst are not true..
It will and therefore sunny has no right to ask others for citesEach request is judged on it's own merits.
Asked, he clarifies that, with regard to the personal photos already delivered by him to the authorities after the disappearance of his daughter MADELEINE, he has no others in his power [possession].
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Two famous photos taken on that holiday were not handed to the PJ; the 'tennis balls' and the 'last' photo, so Gerry wasn't tellimg the truth in his statement.
If it's an honest opinion it may be right or wrong. If it's not true and they know that then it's a deliberate lie.Therefore Amaral's opinion contradicts and knows better than British & Portuguese forensic scientists ... the Judicial Police who compiled the final report for presentation to the Prosecutors ... and the Portuguese prosecutors themselves.
Each request is judged on it's own merits.
If it's an honest opinion it may be right or wrong. If it's not true and they know that then it's a deliberate lie.A lie is only noted if the story keeps on changing. What you've said is true but you need the mind of God to work it out.
Your opinion, like the McCann's and Duarte's, has been rejected.
Therefore Amaral's opinion contradicts and knows better than British & Portuguese forensic scientists ... the Judicial Police who compiled the final report for presentation to the Prosecutors ... and the Portuguese prosecutors themselves.
Not to mention the Judicial Police and the British police who have been working the case in one way or another since about 2010/11 until the present day using the same evidence he did and more?
Do you think he doesn't realise he was terribly wrong in interpretation of the evidence back in 2007 and thus the opinions expressed in his book ... in his documentary ... and as a media pundit?
If you concede that he does not and thus is not a liar going by your definition ... I would have to agree ... as from the little I know of the man I think he is the epitome of "a big boy dun it and ran way".
There are those who think the abduction story could be described as 'a big boy done it and ran away'.There are those who think the earth is flat...
you are not quoting gerry you are quoting the translator
you are not quoting gerry you are quoting the translator
Your opinion, like the McCann's and Duarte's, has been rejected.Are you going to provide me with a cite that proves the McCanns were not libelled or not?
A poor excuse and an unfounded slur on a professional interpreter. Those who have translated Amaral's words are amateur translators, but you are happy to accept their work, I notice.
Right at the end.
"Nothing more said ... read, ratified and going to sign"
So Gerry read it.. In portuguese
Are you going to provide me with a cite that proves the McCanns were not libelled or not?
By whom?read back.
Also ratified.
"to confirm by expressing consent, approval, or formal sanction":
read back.
Just trying to tie down a vague post.???
Are you going to provide me with a cite that proves the McCanns were not libelled or not?
The McCanns sued him for damages and won. That judgement was overturned. Are damages awarded for libel? If they are, then the courts decided it wasn't proved.I disagree as I have already posted...amarals right to free speech was ruled more important than the mccanns right to reputation... ie... The SC allowed amaral to libel the mccanns
I disagree as I have already posted...amarals right to free speech was ruled more important than the mccanns right to reputation... ie... The SC allowed amaral to libel the mccanns
The McCanns sued him for damages and won. That judgement was overturned. Are damages awarded for libel? If they are, then the courts decided it wasn't proved.We were repeatdly assured by McCann sceptics at the time that the case and the award was nothing to do with libel, so what has changed? Either way, I would like a cite from the SC judgement thst “the McCanns were not libelled”, because IMO it is obvious to anyone who can read that they were.
Is there a law in Portugal that states it’s ok to write accusations of criminal behaviour about individuals who have not been cleared of a crime but who have also never been charged?
Is there a law in Portugal that says people can't write a book explaining hoe the police interpreted the evidence gathered in a police investigation?obviously not, even if you’re flat out accusing individuals who have never been charged with a crime of doing the most despicable things! It seens you can get away with libel in Portugal (unless you’re libelling a judge, or the dead).
obviously not, even if you’re flat out accusing individuals who have never been charged with a crime of doing the most despicable things! It seens you can get away with libel in Portugal (unless you’re libelling a judge, or the dead).
What's the difference between reading the case files and reading Amaral's book? The same conclusions are reached in both.Nowhere in the files does it say there is proof Maddie died in the apartment
Nowhere in the files does it say there is proof Maddie died in the apartment
I don't think it says that in the book either.It's in the documentary..I've quoted it many times
I don't think it says that in the book either.
It's in the documentary..I've quoted it many times
It says this in the book
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.
Once again it's down to English comprehension;
"Proof" and "prove" both come from the same word (Latin probus). Usually, "proof" is a noun that means "evidence", and "prove" is a verb that means "demonstrate".
https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/10691/what-are-the-differences-between-proof-and-prove
Once again it's down to English comprehension;
"Proof" and "prove" both come from the same word (Latin probus). Usually, "proof" is a noun that means "evidence", and "prove" is a verb that means "demonstrate".
https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/10691/what-are-the-differences-between-proof-and-prove
What's the difference between reading the case files and reading Amaral's book? The same conclusions are reached in both.One is the files of a police investigation, a complete collection of statements that were never intended to be widely read by the general public , the other is a book written for profit which selectively assembles bits of information from the inestigation in an attempt to present a damning case against two people who were never even charged. Am I going to get the cite that the McCanns were not libelled or not?
Once again it's down to English comprehension;
"Proof" and "prove" both come from the same word (Latin probus). Usually, "proof" is a noun that means "evidence", and "prove" is a verb that means "demonstrate".
https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/10691/what-are-the-differences-between-proof-and-prove
Is there a law in Portugal that states it’s ok to write accusations of criminal behaviour about individuals who have not been cleared of a crime but who have also never been charged?
It’s not only my interpretation though is it? If the book isn’t one giant accusation of criminal activity, then what is it?
That's only your interpretation. The Appeal Court and Supreme Court did not see it like that.
Have you bothered to read the judgement of the Appeal Court or that of the Supreme Court ?
They give good explanations.
Krugel's mysterious, "machine," leaves us all speechless. Kate and Gerry, they stick to their guns. They saw a television programme in which the effectiveness of Krugel's method was demonstrated, and so are persuaded that the man will be able to move the investigation forward. Without being convinced as to the validity of the method, the police end up acceding to their request.True or false?
The show is about to begin.
At customs - in South Africa as well as in Portugal -, Krugal refuses to allow his machine to be submitted to security control: it must be neither x-rayed nor opened. He claims that this would damage it and that his production secret risked being unveiled. Finally, after long hours of negotiation, the man, his apparatus and the journalist accompanying them take off for the Algarve. It's now the middle of July. In late afternoon, they are driven to the Department of Criminal Investigation in Portimão, where a PJ team of investigators is waiting for them. They suggest that we watch a video about this famous invention - produced by the woman accompanying him - so that we can judge for ourselves. We are still not convinced. The following day, a few inspectors accompany Krugel to Praia da Luz for him to officiate.
Operations progress in the following manner.
1) Krugel climbs to the highest point west of Praia da Luz, places a hair into the machine and traces an imaginary line in an easterly direction.
2) He repeats the operation to the north of Praia da Luz and traces another line towards the south.
3) He then determines the point of intersection of these two lines.
4) From this point, he defines a corridor about 300 metres wide, bound by the cliffs on the right and the Roman Baths on the left.
The inventor then states: "Madeleine's body is in this area." The National Guard - who had already combed this area after the disappearance - conduct more searches. Once again, to no avail. As bothered when he left as when he arrived, Krugel goes back to South Africa, taking machine and journalist with him. (TOTL)
order by
up vote
11
down vote
accepted
"Proof" and "prove" both come from the same word (Latin probus). Usually, "proof" is a noun that means "evidence", and "prove" is a verb that means "demonstrate". You prove that an accusation is true by showing proof.
So.. From your quote... You prove by showing proof.... So where's the proof.. ..there's no evidence never mind proof.. So BS.. As I demonstrated
Amaral explained how the PJ reached their conclusions about the McCanns. Their conclusions were based on the evidence they gathered.Was that open Bible part of the evidence?
Amaral explained how the PJ reached their conclusions about the McCanns. Their conclusions were based on the evidence they gathered.They based their conclusions on evidence that was described as lacking by the archiving report. Now, can I have a cite please to prove the McCanns were not libelled by Amaral?
That's only your interpretation. The Appeal Court and Supreme Court did not see it like that.
Have you bothered to read the judgement of the Appeal Court or that of the Supreme Court ?
They give good explanations.
Ignorance is bliss.
That's only your interpretation. The Appeal Court and Supreme Court did not see it like that.
Have you bothered to read the judgement of the Appeal Court or that of the Supreme Court ?
They give good explanations.
Ignorance is bliss.Who are you accusing of ignorance?
Chapter 18: Preliminary results: Preparation for the interrogations
http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.com/2009/06/chapter-18.html A lot of the questions GA asks in this chapter reveal to me that he doesn't really understand how the DNA analysis works.
Ignorance is bliss.
He didn't read it it so couldn't ratify it... He should never have been asked to sign something he could not understand... Very poor policing IMO... We don't know what Gerry said we only know what the interpretor wrote down
Tis folly to be wise.
They based there conclusions on evidence that was described as lacking by the archiving report. Now, can I have a cite please to prove the McCanns were not libelled by Amaral?
Did he ever deny reading it,if not why are you denying he read it on his behalf? did he ever say it was lost in translation?
The only people speaking about libel were the McCanns.
The proof that he didn't libel them can be found in the rulings of the courts.
The first court found him guilty of breaching his duty of reserve and his obligation to uphold the presumption of innocence. It didn't find him guilty of publishing false statements, which is what libel is.
Who are you accusing of ignorance?
Anyone who hasn't read the court reports is ignorant of their contents.
The SC judgement spoke at length about right to reputation which is, what libel is
I seem to remember amaral saying he had not read the archiving report... So we can describe him as ignorant too
The mccanns supplied new statements to the PJ taken by ControlnRisks because they felt the initial ones contained errors
The mccanns supplied new statements to the PJ taken by ControlnRisks because they felt the initial ones contained errors
Cite for these new statements.
There is no evidence that the PJ received those statements. They don't appear in the files.
Do these statements have any validity as they were not taken by police?
There is evidence they were given... If you don't want to accept .. Fine... No point arguing... We agree to differ
The files, are not complete as, I understand
I have, said for some time amaral did not understand the evidence... The conclusions of the interim report and the book are based on a, misunderstanding of the, evidence by amaral and the pjI think that unfortunately we have had a very one sided propaganda war in progress over the years where anything at all critical of Amaral is censored by dint of just not being translated into English.
Are you not aware of this
Who is Miguel Sousa Tavares ?
A commentator along with all and sundry who think they know best but have never lead an investigation.
Interesting opinion though.
About as valid as any one else's and thats it.
Meanwhile any indication from those supposedly conducting the current investigation that Madeleine left 5a alive,one of the tenents of Amarals book I believe.
ETA any one of a techno phobe here,I'm usuing fox and the spool chucker isn't working.
What evidence do you have that they were given to the PJ?
Do the ones taken by the police have any validity... It's a matter of opinion
You are, well aware of where this comes from... You dint accept it.. I do.. I don't see the point in a pointless argument..
It's evidence the mccanns were not happy with the, statements and wished to correct thingd
But he is Portuguese. That's the interesting bit.
Who is Miguel Sousa Tavares ?
Strangely or not,Sutton who is English opines on SY is not seen in the same light.
But he is Portuguese. That's the interesting bit.
Try Googling him ... I believe he is relatively well known on Portuguese television.
TELEVISION
Miguel Sousa Tavares swaps SIC on TVI
8/23/2018, 10:031,700
67
The lawyer, a former journalist and one of the main faces of the commentary in Portugal, returns to a station where he has been for 12 years. For more than seven years, I was analyzing the current situation in SIC.
It's a return to a house you know well . Eight and a half years after going to Carnaxide, Miguel Sousa Tavares once again has a commentary space on TVI . To the Observer, the commentator confirmed the information advanced this Thursday by the Correio da Manhã, but does not clarify when this return to the station of Queluz de Baixo takes place.
Currently, Sousa Tavares had a regular comment space on SIC's Jornal da Noite , every Monday. He was also a commentator resident at the station since 2011, a year after leaving TVI to play in Carnaxide, the current analysis space Sinais de Fogo, which was attended by the former prime minister at the premiere. "A suicide attempt that I hope will not work" - that is how the commentator defined his transfer at the time. It was also, he said, the "end of the beautiful and quiet life" he had in TVI, "merit" of SIC that had managed to get him to the competition.
Miguel Sousa Tavares now does the reverse. "I confirm, but for now, nothing more," says the commentator. The Obervador also found that the lawyer maintains the weekly column that signs on Expresso (publication of the group Impresa, owner of SIC) but it is not yet known when it starts its new comment space on TVI.
In Queluz de Baixo, where he arrived in 1999 , Sousa Tavares shared the stage with former Justice Minister Paula Teixeira da Cruz in the Legitimate Defense program, moderated by Pedro Rolo Duarte (meanwhile deceased). The following year, he would start commenting on current events.
https://observador.pt/2018/08/23/miguel-sousa-tavares-troca-sic-pela-tvi/
They are as valid under Portuguese law as statements given to the English police are under the Law of England and Wales. In England a witness statement is a document recording the evidence of that person and which has been signed to verify it's correct.
Those questioning the validity of the statements taken in Portugal are expressing an opinion which has no legal basis to support it.
Yep. SIC's pet commentator. He's happy to give his opinion on anything; the Budget, tourism, NATO;
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&u=https://sicnoticias.sapo.pt/opinionMakers/miguel_sousa_tavares&prev=search
Try Googling him ... I believe he is relatively well known on Portuguese television.
TELEVISION
Miguel Sousa Tavares swaps SIC on TVI
8/23/2018, 10:031,700
67
The lawyer, a former journalist and one of the main faces of the commentary in Portugal, returns to a station where he has been for 12 years. For more than seven years, I was analyzing the current situation in SIC.
It's a return to a house you know well . Eight and a half years after going to Carnaxide, Miguel Sousa Tavares once again has a commentary space on TVI . To the Observer, the commentator confirmed the information advanced this Thursday by the Correio da Manhã, but does not clarify when this return to the station of Queluz de Baixo takes place.
Currently, Sousa Tavares had a regular comment space on SIC's Jornal da Noite , every Monday. He was also a commentator resident at the station since 2011, a year after leaving TVI to play in Carnaxide, the current analysis space Sinais de Fogo, which was attended by the former prime minister at the premiere. "A suicide attempt that I hope will not work" - that is how the commentator defined his transfer at the time. It was also, he said, the "end of the beautiful and quiet life" he had in TVI, "merit" of SIC that had managed to get him to the competition.
Miguel Sousa Tavares now does the reverse. "I confirm, but for now, nothing more," says the commentator. The Obervador also found that the lawyer maintains the weekly column that signs on Expresso (publication of the group Impresa, owner of SIC) but it is not yet known when it starts its new comment space on TVI.
In Queluz de Baixo, where he arrived in 1999 , Sousa Tavares shared the stage with former Justice Minister Paula Teixeira da Cruz in the Legitimate Defense program, moderated by Pedro Rolo Duarte (meanwhile deceased). The following year, he would start commenting on current events.
https://observador.pt/2018/08/23/miguel-sousa-tavares-troca-sic-pela-tvi/
They are as valid under Portuguese law as statements given to the English police are under the Law of England and Wales. In England a witness statement is a document recording the evidence of that person and which has been signed to verify it's correct.
Those questioning the validity of the statements taken in Portugal are expressing an opinion which has no legal basis to support it.
Isn't he the one who said to Amaral on TV that some serious questions needed to be asked about The Cipriano Case because a large number of people in Portugal didn't believe that they were guilty?
Am I? Does that excuse you from providing a cite? I think not.
Did you never wonder why there appears such desperation and need to diss anyone at all who has an informed opinion on Madeleine's case which goes against a sceptic mantra.
I used to ...
Don't know if signing a document in a foreign language which you neither speak nor read, read back to you by the person who translated and wrote it down in the first instance, quite cuts the mustard as far as anything purported in your post is concerned.
The question was.. Have the mccanns expressed a view that the, statements were not accurate... The answer is. Yes they have... As had been discussed many times... A fact you are well aware of
This man seems to have an 'informed opinion' on anything and everything. I'm not sure what qualifies him to comment on Amaral's fitness to fill his role in the investigation. His knowledge of the case is lacking if he thought Amaral 'led' the investigation; he didn't.
As Barrier commented, Colin Sutton's opinion has more validity than that of Miguel Sousa Tavares due to his background, but McCann supporter's didn't want to acknowledge his expertise or his opinion. You yourself said;
snip/
In my opinion ... Colin Sutton's opinion is exactly that ... his opinion ... and not even an informed one.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10170.msg488822;topicseen#msg488822
How you can describe Tavares' opinion as 'informed' and deny Sutton's opinion the same status is enlightening.
You may well not know, but I expect the Portuguese Judiciary do. If the PJ didn't follow the correct procedures they spent an awful lot of time taking statements which couldn't be seen as evidence. I very much doubt they would do that.
You stated;
snip/
The mccanns supplied new statements to the PJ taken by ControlnRisks
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10458.msg507058#msg507058
Please supply evidence supporting your statement.
You may well not know, but I expect the Portuguese Judiciary do. If the PJ didn't follow the correct procedures they spent an awful lot of time taking statements which couldn't be seen as evidence. I very much doubt they would do that.
The answer perhaps lies in the retaking of statements which were recorded on audio and video when Rebelo took over the investigation from the sacked Amaral?
Are you not, aware of this..... Are you ignorant of this, fact
Which statements?
Either provide your evidence or admit you have none.Are you saying you are unaware the mccanns said they were unhappy with the statements and provided new ones... Or are you just playing a, silly game..
You stated;
snip/
The mccanns supplied new statements to the PJ taken by ControlnRisks
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10458.msg507058#msg507058
Please supply evidence supporting your statement.
Either provide your evidence or admit you have none.
Don't you find all this dis-ingenuity tiresome? I certainly do. Try thinking about the rogatory statements carried out at the request of the Rebelo team which we know about and are included in the files.
Since that diligence was requested and performed using the proper protocols ... do you doubt the Rebelo investigation and it's successor would fail to do everything else by the book?
Don't you find all this dis-ingenuity tiresome? I certainly do. Try thinking about the rogatory statements carried out at the request of the Rebelo team which we know about and are included in the files.
Since that diligence was requested and performed using the proper protocols ... do you doubt the Rebelo investigation and it's successor would fail to do everything else by the book?
Are you saying you are unaware the mccanns said they were unhappy with the statements and provided new ones... Or are you just playing a, silly game..
Answer the, question and I will happily provide the cite
If Rebelo was such a professional, trustworthy kind of police official why did the group not agree to the reconstitution which he requested ?
It seems there might have been misinformation in Amaral's book from the very first sentence if Miguel Sousa Tavares has got it right ...
Snip
Miguel Sousa Tavares : Good evening, Gonçalo Amaral, thank you for this interview.
I'll start in a way that will perhaps surprise you, but your book surprised me a lot immediately with the first sentence because it starts, I don't know whether you recall it, with
"On a Sunday of Carnaval, shots woke me up, hunter were trying to shoot rabbits without defense."
Well, Carnaval in February or in March ?
And rabbits' hunt finishes in December, this can't be true.
Gonçalo Amaral :It can, I was expecting that observation, I know that you are a hunter. But in this area they hunt rabbits after hunting is forbidden and this is a problem, they're clandestine.
MST : But clandestine use to hunt at the end of the afternoon, in the week-end, in certain places... You live in Portimão and are a PJ inspector...
GA : Only two or three people know that I live there...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7483.0
Bit of 'artistic license' taken there perhaps ... unless Portimao is a hotbed of illegal off season rabbit hunters prowling the suburbs in search their prey?
You are stating as fact something which I was not aware of. I agree that the PJ requested the rog interviews, but not that they asked for them to be videoed. Do you have any evidence that it was done at their request?
Had he read on, he would have realised that Amaral's 'leadership' was controlled by his superiors; Encarnacao and Neves.
Page 20 The Truth of the Lie.
The only people speaking about libel were the McCanns.I thought the court wasn’t bothered about what was true and what was false as far as the case or the book was concerned?
The proof that he didn't libel them can be found in the rulings of the courts.
The first court found him guilty of breaching his duty of reserve and his obligation to uphold the presumption of innocence. It didn't find him guilty of publishing false statements, which is what libel is.
Am I? Does that excuse you from providing a cite? I think not.I’m still waiting for a cite from you, that the court found Amaral did not libel the McCanns.
I'm aware that some of the group made statements to Control Risks. I have no evidence that those statements were given to the PJ. Please provide the evidence that they were.
If Rebelo was such a professional, trustworthy kind of police official why did the group not agree to the reconstitution which he requested ?This is such a strawman, off topic post, but entirely typical of its author,
This all hilarious. Were not The Rogatory Interviews designed to clarify things? All on record, of course. And possible to use at any misbegotten Trial.
Unfortunately The McCanns couldn't be interviewed because they had the right to silence. So that put the tin hat on that one.
Own Goal by Amaral, and etcetera.
I've not had sight of the rogatory request from the Judicial Police.
Have you?
Is it your supposition that even at this late stage in the investigation the Judicial Police had overlooked this detail leaving the Leicestershire Constabulary to take the initiative of implementing it on their behalf? despite their requesting the interviews to take place.
Snip
4078 ”Okay, you’re here at the request of the Portuguese Police and you’re obviously aware of the reasons why you’re here and they will at some point, although they’re not monitoring you today, they will be viewing the interview.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm
And that's only your opinion... I've certainly read it and I see it contains serious flaws... IMO. The SC have interpreted the law wrong before and I believe are wrong again.
All the information is already present in the files detailing the reasons for the lack of trust engendered between the Judicial Police and these witnesses.
For myself ... I too would have consulted a lawyer if invited back to what I believed was a hostile environment with the instruction to leave my children at home.
Smell and rat all blend into the same sentence at that.
By the way ... I would prefer you to desist from paraphrasing my words into what you wrongly opine I have said ... I have no doubt Rebelo was both professional and trustworthy as a policeman but I have not said that in this discussion.
was there not a reprt by the PJ brigade of information based in part on information supplied to Control Risks by the tapas group
A little further into the book interview with Amaral, Miguel Sousa Tavares touches on the responsibility for the management of the investigation ...
Snip
GA : Yes, such mistakes happen a lot and in many cases, I remember, it's in the book also, the lady on the video brushing on the outside the shutters of the little girl's room without any protection, today the experts, the police enter the crime scene with special clothes.
MST : You've learned with your mistakes..
GA :and we don't look at CSI series.
MST : It seems to me you had a lifetime chance as a criminal investigator, you had a difficult case to solve, no doubt about that, under worldwide attention because it immediately became global news, at a time with child abduction, paedophilia, you had a golden chance to shine personally, to bring your corporation into a good light...
GA : It wasn't a question of shining.
MST : But you had 2 goals, find Maddie or discover what happened to her, you failed both, you failed your mission and you failed your chance.
GA : No, I gave my contribution to the investigation until I was no longer allowed to contribute and I can tell you that I was not alone in the investigation as the coordinator, GA, the director of Portimao who was alone in the charge of the investigation...
MST : But you were the public face of the investigation.
GA : No.
MST : You were the one who talked more about it.
GA : No, that public face was one they used in England, and here in Portugal also, I only spoke about the investigation when I left the police, until that I was spotted when going to my office, to lunch with colleagues and so on.
MST : Then I remove the charge on yourself, the team you conducted failed both goals, it didn't find the child nor what happened to her.
GA : No.
MST : It's a fact isn't it?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7483.0
Quite a heavy charge that ... failure to Find Madeleine and failure to find out what had happened to her ... and Miguel Sousa Tavares appears to have little doubt for the reasons for that ... nor does he have any compunction of detailing exactly why he thought there was failure on both points quoting Amaral's book to support his argument,
OK, I'll do it myself. The Brigade of Information examined the timeline, which was given to the PJ and which is in the files. It was UK Analyst 7792 Eaton who seems to have had access to the statements given to CRG; five by members of the group and one by Emma Knight.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIGADE-OF-INFORMATION.htm
Would it not have been the same irrespective of who the investigating officer was ?
Merdely your opinion then.I presume that the McCann lawyers looked at the SC ruling before they applied to the ECHR.
So three courts have stated that the McCanns rights were not infringed yet you maintain those judgements contain serious flaws?
Serious flaws according to whom? Anyone who is actually knowledgable on the appropriate laws and their interpretation?. I mean stated flaws by an appropriately experienced lawyer not your interpolation.
No, it would not have been the same. Amaral was already corrupted. He should never have been allowed to coordinate that investigation in the first place.Does that mean IYO the fault lies with Amaral's bosses?
Then stop playing stupid games ...the point is the mccanns are on record as saying there were errors in the way their statements, were recorded
Did you not notice the bit where he backs down? He changes from accusing Amaral to accusing 'the team'And most importantly Amaral's answer to that accusation was "NO".
MST : Then I remove the charge on yourself, the team you conducted failed both goals, it didn't find the child nor what happened to her.
If anyone has played stupid games it isn't me. I know what I know and can provide cites when requested, unlike some.I have requested a cite several times from you and none has been forthcoming.
Yes, Kate McCann did see fit to suggest in her book that that was the reason for giving statements to CRG. 'Lost in translation' were her actual words. That phrase isn't used to pinpoint errors, as such, it refers to the difficulties inherent in translating from one language to another and back again.
No, it would not have been the same. Amaral was already corrupted. He should never have been allowed to coordinate that investigation in the first place.
I have requested a cite several times from you and none has been forthcoming.Could you paste the URL to that request please?
In my opinion that is just your prejudiceBut either way I believe it would have been someone else who gave GA the assignment of coordinating the McCann case
In my opinion that is just your prejudice
But either way I believe it would have been someone else who gave GA the assignment of coordinating the McCann case
Whom is "disliking of the guy"?
There does seem to be an indomitable disliking of the guy.
There does seem to be an indomitable disliking of the guy.
Merdely your opinion then.the argumnet from ...you are not an expert.... fallacy...based on your logic ...amaral had no right to draw conclusions re the dna or the dogs...hes not qualified in either...no right to suspect sedation...no knowledge their either...no one here has the right to say the SC judgement was correct...not qualified to do so.....no right to judge the evidence...not qualified to do so...etc..etc...etc...I remember when you used to make some sensible posts...whats happened
So three courts have stated that the McCanns rights were not infringed yet you maintain those judgements contain serious flaws?
Serious flaws according to whom? Anyone who is actually knowledgable on the appropriate laws and their interpretation?. I mean stated flaws by an appropriately experienced lawyer not your interpolation.
In my opinion that is just your prejudice
You think he should?
That's because he dared to call the McCanns out - IMO
Not only that, he trounced them in the courts.
Good point.http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10458.msg507131#msg507131
Should what ?"He should never have been allowed to coordinate that investigation in the first place."
I have requested a cite several times from you and none has been forthcoming.
Your request is impossible to fulfill, that's why. The 'libel' word was used by the McCanns and the UK media. As far as I know none of them ever said that Amaral didn't libel the McCcanns. The Portuguese media used the word 'damages' rather than libel.
Your request is impossible to fulfill, that's why. The 'libel' word was used by the McCanns and the UK media. As far as I know none of them ever said that Amaral didn't libel the McCcanns. The Portuguese media used the word 'damages' rather than libel.Then it is not true to say the courts rejected libel, they simply never even considered it.
Then it is not true to say the courts rejected libel, they simply never even considered it.
amaral didnt trounce anyone in any court...he hardly said a word...amaral was in no way responsible for the SC ruling.....apart from the mere fact he was part of the portuguese establishmnet...I can see the ECHR taking a totally different view
I’ve no idea, I simply made the statement that obviously Amaral did libel the McCanns and was told that my view was not shared by the courts. I am correcting that incorrect statement.
Were they asked to?
Then it is not true to say the courts rejected libel, they simply never even considered it.
Whom is "disliking of the guy"?
The McCanns could be said to have trounced themselves. They made assertions and accusations that they were unable to prove and got what they deserved imo.
Well the McCanns used the word ad infimitum. They never said they were suing Amaral for damages, which is what they actually did. Whatever it's called they were unsuccessful.Clearly Amaral DID libel the McCanns. if we can’t write the sort of tripe that’s in his book on this forum for fear of being sued for libel then that would seem to prove my point.
The argument could be easily put to bed if its known just what the McCanns lawyers had written on the writ,any one have a copy to hand?
So you believe Rebelo was professional and trustworthy ( see above ) but the group didn’t trust him enough to come back to Portugal without their children. Could you please explain ?
Clearly Amaral DID libel the McCanns. if we can’t write the sort of tripe that’s in his book on this forum for fear of being sued for libel then that would seem to prove my point.
Perhaps when it is on topic on a thread. Until then would it be possible for you to refrain from deflection from the topic of this one?
Amaral wasn't fit for anything. He understood nothing and accomplished nothing. He produced No Evidence. And was completely useless.Yet he felt he had succeeded in solving the case, but unless he was "sacked" the important treaty between the UK and Portugal wasn't going to be signed (this was rumoured as he says but did he believe it?). He seems to be claiming there was too much political interference in the case.
And then he wrote a dreadful book because Cristovao had done the same thing, and made a few bob. This is all a bit beyond me.
I will never understand what Amaral served to do. But whatever it was he failed miserably.
I see no mention of the 'libel' word.
the defendant developed the thesis that the 3rd claimant died in the apartment that the family occupied in Praia da Luz on the night of May 3, 2007, that this death occurred as a result of an accident for which the 1st and 2nd claimants are responsible, that these claimants simulated the abduction of the child and then subtracted the body that they concealed, everything to evade the action of justice.
- These facts deprive the 3rd claimant of the just and apropriate investigation of her disappearance.
- These facts damage and will continue to damage in the future the moral integrity of the 4° and 5° claimants, whose right to good name and good name of their family are affected by those facts.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
Clearly Amaral DID libel the McCanns. if we can’t write the sort of tripe that’s in his book on this forum for fear of being sued for libel then that would seem to prove my point.I've still got one or two chapters to go, but so far I don't see anything libellous in the book itself. I have a feeling it was the combination of video and book and interviews that when taken in total that there might be something to complain about.
Rob seems to be steadily copying and pasting it.That’s his problem.
Did you not notice the bit where he backs down? He changes from accusing Amaral to accusing 'the team'
MST : Then I remove the charge on yourself, the team you conducted failed both goals, it didn't find the child nor what happened to her.
I see no mention of the 'libel' word.If these "facts" were presented as facts then they could be damaging. But I tend to see them as being presented in the book at least as a theory, just as a possibility, which he favoured over and above the other theories as one does with their own theories.
the defendant developed the thesis that the 3rd claimant died in the apartment that the family occupied in Praia da Luz on the night of May 3, 2007, that this death occurred as a result of an accident for which the 1st and 2nd claimants are responsible, that these claimants simulated the abduction of the child and then subtracted the body that they concealed, everything to evade the action of justice.
- These facts deprive the 3rd claimant of the just and apropriate investigation of her disappearance.
- These facts damage and will continue to damage in the future the moral integrity of the 4° and 5° claimants, whose right to good name and good name of their family are affected by those facts.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
I've still got one or two chapters to go, but so far I don't see anything libellous in the book itself. I have a feeling it was the combination of video and book and interviews that when taken in total that there might be something to complain about.
That’s his problem.Is it a problem? News to me that that is a problem!
Is it a problem? News to me that that is a problem!I din’t know, it could be. The rules about libel on this forum are so nebulous (to use a fashionable word) I can’t keep track of what is and isn’t allowed tbh.
Try Googling him ... I believe he is relatively well known on Portuguese television.
TELEVISION
Miguel Sousa Tavares swaps SIC on TVI
8/23/2018, 10:031,700
67
The lawyer, a former journalist and one of the main faces of the commentary in Portugal, returns to a station where he has been for 12 years. For more than seven years, I was analyzing the current situation in SIC.
It's a return to a house you know well . Eight and a half years after going to Carnaxide, Miguel Sousa Tavares once again has a commentary space on TVI . To the Observer, the commentator confirmed the information advanced this Thursday by the Correio da Manhã, but does not clarify when this return to the station of Queluz de Baixo takes place.
Currently, Sousa Tavares had a regular comment space on SIC's Jornal da Noite , every Monday. He was also a commentator resident at the station since 2011, a year after leaving TVI to play in Carnaxide, the current analysis space Sinais de Fogo, which was attended by the former prime minister at the premiere. "A suicide attempt that I hope will not work" - that is how the commentator defined his transfer at the time. It was also, he said, the "end of the beautiful and quiet life" he had in TVI, "merit" of SIC that had managed to get him to the competition.
Miguel Sousa Tavares now does the reverse. "I confirm, but for now, nothing more," says the commentator. The Obervador also found that the lawyer maintains the weekly column that signs on Expresso (publication of the group Impresa, owner of SIC) but it is not yet known when it starts its new comment space on TVI.
In Queluz de Baixo, where he arrived in 1999 , Sousa Tavares shared the stage with former Justice Minister Paula Teixeira da Cruz in the Legitimate Defense program, moderated by Pedro Rolo Duarte (meanwhile deceased). The following year, he would start commenting on current events.
https://observador.pt/2018/08/23/miguel-sousa-tavares-troca-sic-pela-tvi/
in red...describes defamation...or libel
If these "facts" were presented as facts then they could be damaging. But I tend to see them as being presented in the book at least as a theory, just as a possibility, which he favoured over and above the other theories as one does with their own theories.
Did you not notice the bit where he backs down? He changes from accusing Amaral to accusing 'the team'
MST : Then I remove the charge on yourself, the team you conducted failed both goals, it didn't find the child nor what happened to her.
I've still got one or two chapters to go, but so far I don't see anything libellous in the book itself. I have a feeling it was the combination of video and book and interviews that when taken in total that there might be something to complain about.
Opinion is libellous... But you need to finish the book.. The conclusion is libellous
That was nice of him @)(++(*
In English law opinion is only defamatory if it's based on defamatory facts.
Defamation includes both libel and slander.
If I say I think x is a paedophile... That's defamatory...
Because it would be a lie unless you had some evidence.Evidence or proof... Weak evidence or strong evidence
Of course the same accusation could be levelled at Rebelo, do Carmo, Redwood and Wall. They have all failed to find the child or what happened to her.
In English law opinion is only defamatory if it's based on defamatory facts.???
Because it would be a lie unless you had some evidence.Even if you had “some evidence” it would still likely be defamatory. Jason Donovan won a libel lawsuit against the Face magsazine for claiming that he was gay despite the fact that they had “some evidence” he was gay, presumably based on what they believed gay people look like, dress and act and what they had heard on the grapevine.
You can't really fault this:
"We gave the best of ourselves to resolve this case. Our conclusions rest on the proven facts and the evidence interpreted within the principles of the law. Our work was done in the cause of justice, based on the material truth, the only thing that must prevail in a universe where the lie is raised up as truth."
Amaral squandered the benefit no-one else enjoyed of the golden hours. His book is a masterclass of some of the ways in which he squandered them.
Snip
MST : One can't trust what the witnesses say, ok.
G A : Not the witnesses, the suspects, don't you forget that !
MST : (mocking) But you determined them as suspects before they became suspects, it is what it seems to me, really, the idea you give is that they are immediately suspects..
GA : But they're not...
MST : You woke up the next day in the morning and without even having looked at their faces, you are already suspecting them..
GA : But it's a golden rule...
MST : Which golden rule ? I think the golden rule here is to start investigating, if there is evidence, then suspicions may arise, but before you have any evidence, there are already suspicions.
GA : No, in international terms... We don't have many cases...
MST : Gonçalo Amaral, excuse me for that, but it seems to me that you started from a thesis and looked for evidence to confirm your thesis, instead of doing the other way round.
GA : You're wrong, on the contrary I can tell you something: in the beginning they said it was a case similar to another one, I said no...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7483.0
You can't really fault this:wrote the ex-cop with a conviction for perjury.
"We gave the best of ourselves to resolve this case. Our conclusions rest on the proven facts and the evidence interpreted within the principles of the law. Our work was done in the cause of justice, based on the material truth, the only thing that must prevail in a universe where the lie is raised up as truth."
Even if you had “some evidence” it would still likely be defamatory. Jason Donovan won a libel lawsuit against the Face magsazine for claiming that he was gay despite the fact that they had “some evidence” he was gay, presumably based on what they believed gay people look like, dress and act and what they had heard on the grapevine.
Jeffrey Archer won a libel trial in 1987, but he lied and was found out later.So what? On that basis should we be allowed to libel anyone we like?
Jezus. I despair. There has never been any evidence or proof. So why on earth are we doing this? Is there some inherent hatred that I don't understand? Or are we all so bemused that we can't see that there is nothing.
.
Personally, I don't care all that much any more. There is never going to be a good end to this. And that is really sad.
Amaral and the rest of his, team thought the dogs proved maddies death in 5a.. That is, a, fact.... And they were, wrong.... That took the investigation in the, wrong direction.... Amaral wants, to blame, everyone else but it was, the fault of him and his, team for not understanding the evidence
Still nothing to suggest the girl left 5a alive,what evidence is there to prove him wrong on that score.He needs evidence to prove him right...
5. The body, the existence of which has been confirmed by the EVRD and CSI dogs but also by the results of the preliminary laboratory analyses, cannot be found.
The above is from amarals book.... They thought a body in 5a was confirmed... Proof of total incompetence ...if a, police force has, such a, poor understanding of the evidence how can they possibly solve a case
Although not confirmed, the cadaver dog alerts suggested the possibility that a cadaver had been in 5a at some point. Redwood admitted that SY believed that Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive. Anyone who thinks that any police force wouldn’t consider the alerts in their investigations is living in cloud cuckoo land I’m afraid.
Although not confirmed, the cadaver dog alerts suggested the possibility that a cadaver had been in 5a at some point. Redwood admitted that SY believed that Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive. Anyone who thinks that any police force wouldn’t consider the alerts in their investigations is living in cloud cuckoo land I’m afraid.
So what? On that basis should we be allowed to libel anyone we like?
I don't know why we're interested to be honest. The McCanns accused Amaral of 'libel' but were unable to prove it. All he did was tell the story of the investigation from May to September 2007. His conclusions were the conclusions of the investigation at that point in time.As far as I rcall the Portuguese court was not interested in proving libel or otherwise. Clearly the McCanns WERE libelled otherwise perhaps you could explain why no one has published a best selling book in this country claiming the McCanns as sole culprits in their daughter’s disappearance?
The McCanns sued because they believed that the archiving report declared them innocent. It didn't.
I don't know why we're interested to be honest. The McCanns accused Amaral of 'libel' but were unable to prove it. All he did was tell the story of the investigation from May to September 2007. His conclusions were the conclusions of the investigation at that point in time.If the McCanns are not innocent in the eyes of the law what are they?
The McCanns sued because they believed that the archiving report declared them innocent. It didn't.
I don't know why we're interested to be honest. The McCanns accused Amaral of 'libel' but were unable to prove it. All he did was tell the story of the investigation from May to September 2007. His conclusions were the conclusions of the investigation at that point in time.IMO you have both these facts wrong...
The McCanns sued because they believed that the archiving report declared them innocent. It didn't.
He needs evidence to prove him right...
Seeing as the thread is about his book and his right under Portuguese law to write it,why does he need evidence to prove him right,Hogan Howe,Rowley,Redwood,Do Carmo,Dick not one of them has said they believe she left 5a alive on the evening/night 3/05/2007.
If the McCanns are not innocent in the eyes of the law what are they?The McCanns have declared that they played no part in the disappearance of their child. Have the others said the same?
IMO you have both these facts wrong...
Part if the mccanns claim was, defamation... The SC ruled amarals right to free speech allowed him to defame the mccanns
The mccanns claimed they had the right to presumption of innocence and the, archiving report was evidence of innocence... The SC disagreed and will be heavily criticised by the ECHR.. IMO
If the McCanns are not innocent in the eyes of the law what are they?
If he claims he has evidence and he doesn't... Then he looks a bit of a fool imoWhat he has got are the discrepancies in the Tapas 9 statements, particularly the bit about how long DP stayed in 5A.
If he is stating opinion with no evidence he should say so..
Those you quote have not said they can prove what happened
There is only one fact at this moment in time. Amaral is free to express his opinion on the case because the McCanns bid to silence him failed.
There is only one fact at this moment in time. Amaral is free to express his opinion on the case because the McCanns bid to silence him failed.Amaral might actually see where he went wrong hence saying nothing ATM.
What he has got are the discrepancies in the Tapas 9 statements, particularly the bit about how long DP stayed in 5A.
The forensic evidence showed there was no break-in.
Three of the Tapas 7 claimed they saw Robert Murat there on the night of the 3rd. No one else claimed to have seen him.
The two timelines written on the sticker book covers were at odds with the established facts later revealed through the statements.
He seems to have gone very quiet... With a favourable ECHR ruling anything he says now could see him back in court with no defence
What do you expect of him,the McCanns are also quiet,
Amaral might actually see where he went wrong hence saying nothing ATM.
What happened to the claims of suing the mccanns and his new bookAs I said "Amaral might actually see where he went wrong hence saying nothing ATM".
Maybe he's just grown weary of the whole thing. I know I have .I'd say when there is a million Euros at stake one doesn't get weary.
As I said "Amaral might actually see where he went wrong hence saying nothing ATM".
Especially if the PJ and SY are looking at woke and wandered. Some of his theory is out then isn't it?
Maybe he's just grown weary of the whole thing. I know I have .
Are SY looking at woke and wanderedI said "if" they are.
Are SY looking at woke and wandered
As I said "Amaral might actually see where he went wrong hence saying nothing ATM".
Especially if the PJ and SY are looking at woke and wandered. Some of his theory is out then isn't it?
I'd say when there is a million Euros at stake one doesn't get weary.
Paper talk,just like Amaral supposedly suing the McCann,if you believe one why not the other?
Who's got a million Euros?
I'd say when there is a million Euros at stake one doesn't get weary.
It's quite clear that this case attracted unusual attention. I know of no other case where an Ambassador drives for 2.5 hours to get involved in a case. It's not part of his job, it's the job of the Consul. Most people have trouble getting the Consul's help and have no chance of the Ambassador getting involved. That fact alone leads me to believe Amaral when he says there was political interference.
If that interference prevented the PJ from doing their job then it's hardly fair to blame Amaral. It's normal to suspect family and friends when a child disappears into thin air. If the PJ were prevented from clearing the ground beneath their feet by looking at the group first, then the fault isn't theirs.
Although not confirmed, the cadaver dog alerts suggested the possibility that a cadaver had been in 5a at some point. Redwood admitted that SY believed that Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive. Anyone who thinks that any police force wouldn’t consider the alerts in their investigations is living in cloud cuckoo land I’m afraid.
Amaral also made reference in his book and eulogised the performance of the same cadaver dog's performance in Jersey.
He really did not understand the correlation between a dog alert and forensic confirmation.
The dog can be witnessed alerting on many occasions in video footage from Haute del la Garenne. No evidence ... no forensic confirmation ... and most important of all ~ no missing persons either child or adult.
In my opinion this was a dog with a video history of alerting but in effect, alerting to nothing ... which was allowed to determine the mismanagement of a case when the investigators as a result took their eye off the ball and made the entirely wrong investigative decisions and fatally compromised Madeleine's case as a result.
A bit like that darned cat - neither one thing nor the other - or possibly both at the same time ?{)(**In the eyes of the law that person is innocent, and it’s not up to them to prove otherwise, unless you have a cite for the applicable bit of legislation which says so or which states such a person is a little bit guilty or a little bit innocent?
Consider the case of the CPS who decline to bring a case to court because they consider they have little chance of a conviction. Do they then consider their 'target' to be innocent ?
Maybe he's just grown weary of the whole thing. I know I have .Not THAT weary though!
In the eyes of the law that person is innocent, and it’s not up to them to prove otherwise, unless you have a cite for the applicable bit of legislation which says somor which states such a person is a little bit guilty or a little bit innocent?
If you look at Colin Stagg... Even though he was totally innocent the CPS had enough evidence to take him to trial... But not enough to convict him... Fortunately. In other countries he may have been persuaded to confessI guess those who support Amaral’s right to write his book would have been equally supportive of any ex-copper writing a best selling book about Stagg being Rachel Nickell’s killer and publishing it before the true culprit was known.
In the eyes of the law that person is innocent, and it’s not up to them to prove otherwise, unless you have a cite for the applicable bit of legislation which says so or which states such a person is a little bit guilty or a little bit innocent?
Not THAT weary though!
Although not confirmed, the cadaver dog alerts suggested the possibility that a cadaver had been in 5a at some point. Redwood admitted that SY believed that Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive. Anyone who thinks that any police force wouldn’t consider the alerts in their investigations is living in cloud cuckoo land I’m afraid.True but now add in woke and wandered as well.
Anyone who think the, alerts, confirmed a body in 5a is living in cloud cuckoo land.... And that includes, amaral and his misguided team...Getting close to being abusive Davel.
Getting close to being abusive Davel.
abusive to who....I didnt introduce the phraseI haven't had to delete any posts lately because the arguments have been attacking the post rather than the person. But when you say a person understanding such and such is living in cuckoo land that is getting close to being an ad hominem.
Although not confirmed, the cadaver dog alerts suggested the possibility that a cadaver had been in 5a at some point. Redwood admitted that SY believed that Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive. Anyone who thinks that any police force wouldn’t consider the alerts in their investigations is living in cloud cuckoo land I’m afraid.
Anyone who think the, alerts, confirmed a body in 5a is living in cloud cuckoo land.... And that includes, amaral and his misguided team...In his book Amaral makes mention that he felt the two dogs (an EVRD and a CSI dog) working in combination "confirm" the presence of a death. ( I suppose that happens in the mind of a detective looking for clues.)
In his book Amaral makes mention that he felt the two dogs (an EVRD and a CSI dog) working in combination "confirm" the presence of a death. ( I suppose that happens in the mind of a detective looking for clues.)
Did Keela alert in the bedroom?
Did Keela alert to Cuddle Cat?
I think this is why GA is more focused on what happened around the sofa, yet I don't.
Faithlilly's comment was a tad bit milder than yours even though very similar.
I dont see faith accusing people of living in cloud cuckoo land any different to mine...if you are sugggesting her post is acceptable and mine isnt...that is totally unnacceptableRead what I said.
Oh The McCanns have a special law afforded to them?If you supported Amaral’s right in this regard but no other ex-copper’s right to do likewise then that would be rather hypocritical IMO. Now have your little vote.
how very quaint...
well actually all BS.... in the eyes of the law no one is innocent. The terminology you struggle with is- in the eyes of the law they will be PRESUMED innocent.
Tks tsk
I guess those who support Amaral’s right to write his book would have been equally supportive of any ex-copper writing a best selling book about Stagg being Rachel Nickell’s killer and publishing it before the true culprit was known.
What a lovely accusation, I would like a cite just so you don't look like a complete £&@@@!!!
Shall we havea vote? Yes I think we should have a vote or have the post removed Hello Admin, what say you?
You got inside knowledge or just voicing an opinion ?Yes, I have insider knowledge on the level of weariness you are experiencing, ob.
Read what I said.
Let’s have a vote on whether or not, in the eyes of the law the McCanns are presumed to be innocent. Once that has been established we can then discuss why Amaral was allowed to publish his book on the basis that the McCanns “failed to prove their innocence”, according to the SC.
Lets not. I'm too weary to be bothered 8(8-))Bless you. &%54%
Let’s have a vote on whether or not, in the eyes of the law the McCanns are presumed to be innocent. Once that has been established we can then discuss why Amaral was allowed to publish his book on the basis that the McCanns “failed to prove their innocence”, according to the SC.
Only in a court of law.Was the Supreme Court not a court of law?
Let’s have a vote on whether or not, in the eyes of the law the McCanns are presumed to be innocent. Once that has been established we can then discuss why Amaral was allowed to publish his book on the basis that the McCanns “failed to prove their innocence”, according to the SC.
You claimed wrongly that the McCanns were innocent in the eyes of the law. You were wrong to claim that- no one is innocent when being investigated. They are PRESUMED to be innocent. IF they did go to court they would be declared either guilty or Innocent and in Scotland we have the not proven verdict.So I am wrong to say that in the eyes of the law the McCanns are innocent, in which case what is their status legally speaking?
Sr Amaral was not allowed to pubish his book on the basis the "McCanns “failed to prove their innocence”
He was allowed to publish on the basis of his freedom of expression based on an investigation he was part of.
You do like to make things up to suit your agenda.
How can you go about proving your innocence? well you can start by telling the bloody trruth and not make up a phantom gang of peedos breaking in and stealing your daughter- without leaving a trace!
Let’s have a vote on whether or not, in the eyes of the law the McCanns are presumed to be innocent. Once that has been established we can then discuss why Amaral was allowed to publish his book on the basis that the McCanns “failed to prove their innocence”, according to the SC.
Are you sure the SC said the McCanns "failed to prove their innocence" or is that just what you think they said?Someone said it, who did? You said
Someone said it, who did? You said
“The McCanns sued because they believed that the archiving report declared them innocent. It didn't”. Wasn’t that why the SC found in Amaral’s favour?
Your post differs in both form and meaning from mine, and was presented as if it was a direct quote. Misleading.Sorry but I don’t understand your complaint. I directly quoted you. I return to my original point which you took issue with. Clearly the McCanns were libelled by Amaral in his book, do you still dispute this?
The SC found in Amaral's favour because they, like the Appeal Court, found the McCann's lawyer's arguments inadequate. One of her arguments was that they were 'cleared' by the archiving dispatch, but that is not something an archiving dispatch can do.
I've read it... If mines abusive then so is faiths... I don't find faiths post abusive... Why have you suddenly brought up a post that has, gone unnoticed for 10 hours... It seems odd to me and is disruptive... Let the discussion flowI don't take that time factor into consideration. If it is "new" to me it is liable for moderation.
I don't take that time factor into consideration. If it is "new" to me it is liable for moderation.
I respectfully suggest you type "cloud cuckoo land" into the search facility at the top of the page.......
Was the Supreme Court not a court of law?
I respectfully suggest you type "cloud cuckoo land" into the search facility at the top of the page.......
Not one that was considering their culpability.Sorry, you’ve lost me.
I did as you suggest and the only examples I could find were from yesterday so I don't understand why you should make that post.who used the term first? Incidentally I typed “cloud cuckoo” into the search bar and 30 posts came up.
who used the term first? Incidentally I typed “cloud cuckoo” into the search bar and 30 posts came up.
Sorry but I don’t understand your complaint. I directly quoted you. I return to my original point which you took issue with. Clearly the McCanns were libelled by Amaral in his book, do you still dispute this?
If something is in quotation marks and is followed by "said the SC" you are not quoting me.The book isn't libellous in your opinion.. IMO it is... The ECHR will provide the answer.... My interpretation of the SC ruling is, that even though the book was libellous it was ruled amarals right to free speech was more important than the mccanns right to reputation
Of course the book wasn't libelous.
Cloud cuckoo brings up 30 results, including this one from John..This is what Wikipedia says about Cloud Cuckoo Land:
a conviction for murdering five people including two children. If anyone believes for a minute that they will then they are living in cloud cuckoo land with La La.
So I don't really understand why Rob is, making such a fuss about me using it
who used the term first? Incidentally I typed “cloud cuckoo” into the search bar and 30 posts came up.If you typed in the words you might have an extra space or an unnoticed spelling error. I entered "cuckoo land" into the search facility and go 30 odd results.
This is what Wikipedia says about Cloud Cuckoo Land:
"Cloud cuckoo land is a state of absurdly, over-optimistic fantasy or an unrealistically idealistic state where everything is perfect. Someone who is said to "live in cloud cuckoo land" is a person who thinks that things that are completely impossible might happen, rather than understanding how things really are.[1] It also hints that the person referred to is naive, unaware of realities or deranged in holding such an optimistic belief.
In the modern world, a "cloud cuckoo land" is defined as someone who is seen as "crazy" or "strange" by most average people, often doing or saying things that seemingly only make sense to themselves, but also exhibit cleverness at times in ways no one else would think of.[2]"
Which is what I though in general. I'm sure it is not acceptable to say that someone is in "cloud cuckoo land" but it might be OK to warn someone of the dangers of going there.
So it is not the use of the words but how they are used.
If you typed in the words you might have an extra space or an unnoticed spelling error. I entered "cuckoo land" into the search facility and go 30 odd results.
If you typed in the words you might have an extra space or an unnoticed spelling error. I entered "cuckoo land" into the search facility and go 30 odd results.
I don't understand. I typed in cuckoo and only got results from yesterday. None before.
If that's, what you think you need to issue John and all the others who have used it a warning... Or as no one has complained about it's use... You could let the forum flow as it has been doing
Yes it's been used quite a lot without anyone being offendedThat is harder to assess as any post considered ad hominem will have been deleted, hence will not show up in a search result.
I've just typed in cuckoo and got 30 results... Used by various posters
Ah I understand now. I need to go to the front page of the forum before searching. This gives all the results I believe.You must be in Cuckoo Land. I think that is used in bad taste when a person is specifically pointed out.
Yes it's been used quite a lot without anyone being offended
At least one such post containing the phrase was directed at me ... I don't remember being offended at the time and I wasn't offended when reading it again.Exactly. I had not reported Davel's use of the phrase but it was IMO tending to be directed at a person rather than in the general warning usage.
I think it is just one of those ridiculous phrases which has entered common usage and is mildly offensive (as Rob has rightly argued) but nobody really bothers with too much now.
I'm sure if anyone reports it ... again as Rob has said ... we need to consider it in context.
You must be in Cuckoo Land. I think that is used in bad taste when a person is specifically pointed out.
Exactly. I had not reported Davel's use of the phrase but it was IMO tending to be directed at a person rather than in the general warning usage.
I didn't apply it to a particular personI only said it was close.
I only said it was close.Whereas Faithlilly wrote "Anyone who thinks that any police force wouldn’t consider the alerts in their investigations is living in cloud cuckoo land I’m afraid."
You wrote "Anyone who think the, alerts, confirmed a body in 5a is living in cloud cuckoo land.... And that includes, amaral and his misguided team..."
Well it wasn't directed at anyone till you wrote "And that includes, amaral and his misguided team..."
You must be in Cuckoo Land. I think that is used in bad taste when a person is specifically pointed out.
I only said it was close.I think that's fair comment... We have posts, accusing the mccanns of being liars which you have have, allowed to stand...
You wrote "Anyone who think the, alerts, confirmed a body in 5a is living in cloud cuckoo land.... And that includes, amaral and his misguided team..."
Well it wasn't directed at anyone till you wrote "And that includes, amaral and his misguided team..."
Whereas Faithlilly wrote "Anyone who thinks that any police force wouldn’t consider the alerts in their investigations is living in cloud cuckoo land I’m afraid."And I don't see why you have made such a fuss about my post
I don't see any reason why you would take that personally Davel.
And I don't see why you have made such a fuss about my post
I think that's fair comment... We have posts, accusing the mccanns of being liars which you have have, allowed to stand...Any statement in the file could be a truth or a lie. How do the detectives work out which is which? That is the art of being a detective. Inconsistencies in a person's statements or in statements made by different persons discussing the same subject aren't going to help to say "they are truth".
And I don't see why you have made such a fuss about my postI care for you TBH. (I was looking after you.)
Perhaps it is because you are the poster that most commonly makes such allegations albeit using different words eg "you don't understand" etc.
I care for you TBH. (I was looking after you.)
Any statement in the file could be a truth or a lie. How do the detectives work out which is which? That is the art of being a detective. Inconsistencies in a person's statements or in different persons discussing the same subject aren't going to help to say truth.
So they build a theory, and that theory can be right or wrong.
It is a valid theory to suggest the McCanns could be lying. How do you prove that theory right or wrong?
The book isn't libellous in your opinion.. IMO it is... The ECHR will provide the answer.... My interpretation of the SC ruling is, that even though the book was libellous it was ruled amarals right to free speech was more important than the mccanns right to reputation
So you, admit you have deliberately targeted me... At last your post makes sense... Might be best to drop it now... Persistent arguing is, against forum rules
The Supreme Court examined the evidence presented by the McCann's lawyer and decided that it didn't prove her case.
It may well be that different evidence may have resulted in a different outcome.
I don't target you Davel. You target everyone who is a sceptic. I care about you too. 8)--))
Cite for... I target everyone who is a sceptic... That's an as hom and us absolute rubbish... I discuss the case.. Nothing more
Suggesting the mccanns, are lying is libellous I believe... When I have suggested amaral is lying my posts have been removedThat might be so, but it wasn't me who removed them. I have been through his book and a lot of facts in it I'd have no way of knowing if they were true or false. For example did his dog really die? I don't know. But I have identified probably 10 points where he is in error IMO. I don't think I'd class him as a liar just because he made 10 mistakes in writing his book, but it makes me wonder why there were any mistakes at all.
Would you really like me to provide cites? There will be an awful lot of them and as I am going out in a few minutes it will be a while before I can sort them out.
That might be so, but it wasn't me who removed them. I have been through his book and a lot of facts in it I'd have no way of knowing if they were true or false. For example did his dog really die? I don't know. But I have identified probably 10 points where he is in error IMO. I don't think I'd class him as a liar just because he made 10 mistakes in writing his book, but it makes me wonder why there were any mistakes at all.
Amaral said maddies, death in the, apartment was confirmed... It wasn't... That's a mistake... He said Eddie, found a body under concrete in jetsey... Another mistakeAre they just misunderstandings rather than attempts to deceive?
Are they just misunderstandings rather than attempts to deceive?Are you suggesting he was lying
Pardon?
Are you suggesting he was lyingThis is what I said: "I don't think I'd class him as a liar just because he made 10 mistakes in writing his book, but it makes me wonder why there were any mistakes at all."
Don't say Pardon, say What.What?
This is what I said: "I don't think I'd class him as a liar just because he made 10 mistakes in writing his book, but it makes me wonder why there were any mistakes at all."Perhaps if he had taken time to read and fully take on board the details outlined in the archiving report he might have made fewer mistakes. But deadlines had to be met. The book was already written ... it was already printed ... and there were book signings and promotions to be attended to.
Perhaps if he had taken time to read and fully take on board the details outlined in the archiving report he might have made fewer mistakes. But deadlines had to be met. The book was already written ... it was already printed ... and there were book signings and promotions to be attended to.What I see happening is the feeling that favouritism occurred. It is like someone saying if a poor working class family left their kids alone they would be taken off them but the McCanns got away with it. So the ones who feel the unfairness side with GA even if he is a "failed cop", because the reason he failed is again blamed on the hierarchy.
One of the things which I fail to understand is the ready acceptance that those who have never lived under a police state have so readily accepted and promoted that this one failed cop had the right to set himself up as prosecution, judge and jury on a couple who had undergone legal due process and emerged from it with no charges being laid.
Perhaps if he had taken time to read and fully take on board the details outlined in the archiving report he might have made fewer mistakes. But deadlines had to be met. The book was already written ... it was already printed ... and there were book signings and promotions to be attended to.
One of the things which I fail to understand is the ready acceptance that those who have never lived under a police state have so readily accepted and promoted that this one failed cop had the right to set himself up as prosecution, judge and jury on a couple who had undergone legal due process and emerged from it with no charges being laid.
The SC said it was, a balance between the mccanns right to reputation and amarals right to free speech.... They decided amarals rights were more important... The ECHR will not support that imo
Perhaps if he had taken time to read and fully take on board the details outlined in the archiving report he might have made fewer mistakes. But deadlines had to be met. The book was already written ... it was already printed ... and there were book signings and promotions to be attended to.
One of the things which I fail to understand is the ready acceptance that those who have never lived under a police state have so readily accepted and promoted that this one failed cop had the right to set himself up as prosecution, judge and jury on a couple who had undergone legal due process and emerged from it with no charges being laid.
The onus in a 'libel' trial is on the accuser to prove their case. In this case they failed. The Portuguese State didn't, in my opinion, breach the McCann's human rights.I think you are totally wrong looking at other cases... Did Murat not win his case... Again looking at other ECHR cases it, seems to me the mccanns have a very solid complaint
In my opinion the McCann's lawyer was the one who misunderstood the archiving dispatch. According to the Supreme Court she failed to understand that it's contents were at variance with it's conclusions. She also thought it had more significance than it actually possessed.
In my opinion the McCann's lawyer was the one who misunderstood the archiving dispatch. According to the Supreme Court she failed to understand that it's contents were at variance with it's conclusions. She also thought it had more significance than it actually possessed.
The onus in a 'libel' trial is on the accuser to prove their case. In this case they failed. The Portuguese State didn't, in my opinion, breach the McCann's human rights.
I think you are totally wrong looking at other cases... Did Murat not win his case... Again looking at other ECHR cases it, seems to me the mccanns have a very solid complaint
Correio da Manhã printed as fact rumours about Murat's personality and behavioural traits. They lied when they said that the police believed these rumours to be true.
Amaral documented what the police actually believed during the period covered by his book.
Two very different scenarios imo.
To be fair to Duarte I believe she was only taking instructions.
We don't know what went on between the McCanns and Duarte. She may have advised against proceeding for all we know. All we do know is that she accepted the case and then lost it.3. The SC incorrectly interpreted ECHR law
Unless the judges were biased, which is unlikely in my opinion, she lot the case for one of two reasons;
1. It was a lost cause from the beginning as there was no defamation.
2. It was winnable, but her arguments were inadequate.
If they printed facts, about his behavioural traits then according to you he, would have to prove them wrong... I don't see how Portugal could be so at odds with ECHR law... where in the cases I've quoted those defamed have not have to have proved themselves innocent
I think you are, quite mistaken
The law in England and Wales;So you think in the UK the plaintiff has to prove the allegation false... You are totally mistaken
"the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff."
https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/elements-of-libel-and-slander.html
Correio da Manhã printed as fact rumours about Murat's personality and behavioural traits. They lied when they said that the police believed these rumours to be true.
Amaral documented what the police actually believed during the period covered by his book.
Two very different scenarios imo.
from http://pjga.blogspot.com/?m=0
1. The McCanns have invoked the principle of presumption of innocence to justify the restrictions they want imposed on dr. Amaral's freedom of expression;
2. The Supreme Court stated, in its ruling, that the above is no argument because the McCanns were not considered innocent by the investigation and the case was archived because not enough evidence was found to charge them.
3. The McCanns, because they believe the above argument is false, request for the Supreme Court's decision to be nullified.
so 1 says the mccanns invoked the presumption of innocence...and 2 ...the SC say they were not entitled to it because the archiving despatch did not clear them.......which is contrary to ECHR law as i understand.. This also confirms the mccanns were not claiming to have been proven innocent... They simply felt they were entitled to the presumption of innocence
... wrote Correio da Manhã in May 2007. "It's this 33-year-old Englishman who the Judiciary Police believes dragged little Maddie from the bed where she slept to the house where she lives with her mother. "
https://www.publico.pt/2013/05/06/sociedade/noticia/correio-da-manha-condenado-a-pagar-15-mil-euros-a-robert-murat-1593550
Lies may have been printed by Correio da Manhã as proved by the fact the Portuguese court ruled he had been libelled.
Apart from your opinion do you have a cite verifying that the police were traduced by them too?
I don't know who wrote that, but it's just an opinion.
If anyone is interested in understanding the legal points there's a good piece here which explains them;
Legal explanations with the valuable insight of a Portuguese jurist
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2017/03/on-mccanns-request-for-annulment-of.html
I don't target you Davel. You target everyone who is a sceptic. I care about you too. 8)--))
If something is in quotation marks and is followed by "said the SC" you are not quoting me.Of course it is, if not then you try writing your opinion of what you think the McCanns did that night and see how long it lasts on this forum. Then, when it has been removed, ask yourself why.
Of course the book wasn't libelous.
I'm not sure what you're asking, sorry. There were nasty allegations against Murat and rhey were investigated by the PJ. No evidence was found to support them.What sort of evidence would you expect the police to find to support such historic allegations?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm
What sort of evidence would you expect the police to find to support such historic allegations?'I suppose they could ask the cat.
'I suppose they could ask the cat.
I'm not sure what you're asking, sorry. There were nasty allegations against Murat and rhey were investigated by the PJ. No evidence was found to support them.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm
I'm not sure what you're asking, sorry. There were nasty allegations against Murat and rhey were investigated by the PJ. No evidence was found to support them.The archiving report quantified the amount of evidence against Murat in the same terms as that against the McCanns. I guess that means it would have been OK for any ex cop on the case to have written a lurid book about Murat’s involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance on that basis, and get away with it.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm
I'm not sure what you're asking, sorry. There were nasty allegations against Murat and rhey were investigated by the PJ. No evidence was found to support them.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm
Yes... Cats don't lieMy cat cat walks over the keyboard, so I suppose that could be classed as a written confession.
What sort of evidence would you expect the police to find to support such historic allegations?
So you think in the UK the plaintiff has to prove the allegation false... You are totally mistaken
The archiving report quantified the amount of evidence against Murat in the same terms as that against the McCanns. I guess that means it would have been OK for any ex cop on the case to have written a lurid book about Murat’s involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance on that basis, and get away with it.
I provided a cite, where's yours?
So you think in the UK the plaintiff has to prove the allegation false... You are totally mistakenIf you have not been convicted of that crime you are presumed innocent (surely that applies to all situations).
If you have not been convicted of that crime you are presumed innocent (surely that applies to all situations).
"First, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff."
Being accused of committing a crime which you haven't been convicted of is clearly defamatory.
Defamatory by definition.
Which is what amaral didI find the legal arguments hard to follow.
and the link you have posted is just opinion...it ends with...
benefit from the presumption of innocence should criminal proceedings eventually be brought against the Appellants
which of course is incorrect which makes the rest suspect....there does not have to be criminal charges befire a suspect is guaranteed the presumption of innocence
The Supreme Court wasn't rejecting the principle of the presumption of innocence, it was rejecting a specific claim made by the McCann's lawyer.Could you provide a cite for that... The mccanns, were entitled to the presumption of innocence irrespective of the archiving despatch so I think you are totally mistaken... So cite please
They claimed that the McCanns were entitled to the presumption of innocence BECAUSE the archiving dispatch cleared them.
The SC judges responded that the archiving dispatch did not clear them THEREFORE their claim was incorrect.
The Supreme Court wasn't rejecting the principle of the presumption of innocence, it was rejecting a specific claim made by the McCann's lawyer.So whilst no longer being suspects they are still suspects, is that it?
They claimed that the McCanns were entitled to the presumption of innocence BECAUSE the archiving dispatch cleared them.
The SC judges responded that the archiving dispatch did not clear them THEREFORE their claim was incorrect.
So whilst no longer being suspects they are still suspects, is that it?
The Supreme Court wasn't rejecting the principle of the presumption of innocence, it was rejecting a specific claim made by the McCann's lawyer.The question remains were they entitled to the presumption of innocence, even after making the wrong claim ( not withstanding the Archiving Report had its own errors in it).
They claimed that the McCanns were entitled to the presumption of innocence BECAUSE the archiving dispatch cleared them.
The SC judges responded that the archiving dispatch did not clear them THEREFORE their claim was incorrect.
To be fair to Duarte I believe she was only taking instructions.
Could you provide a cite for that... The mccanns, were entitled to the presumption of innocence irrespective of the archiving despatch so I think you are totally mistaken... So cite please
Perhaps if he had taken time to read and fully take on board the details outlined in the archiving report he might have made fewer mistakes. But deadlines had to be met. The book was already written ... it was already printed ... and there were book signings and promotions to be attended to.
One of the things which I fail to understand is the ready acceptance that those who have never lived under a police state have so readily accepted and promoted that this one failed cop had the right to set himself up as prosecution, judge and jury on a couple who had undergone legal due process and emerged from it with no charges being laid.
The SC rejected the reason Duarte gave, not the existence of the entitlement. .
And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.
In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277° of the CPP).
The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277°-2)
There is, therefore, a remarkable difference, and not merely a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds of the filing order.
Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.
We consider, therefore, that the invocation of breach of the principle of presumption of innocence should not be upheld. That principle does not fall under the decision about the question that has to be resolved.
the moral being, in simple terms, be sure you understand what you are asking to be judged and under what conditions it may be judged.
What gunit seems to be saying is that as they had not been cleared they were not entitled to the presumption of innocence... Which is patently absurd
So the SC is saying lack of evidence is not evidence of innocence... Yet lack of evidence is I would think the number one reason for acquittal.... And is therefore evidence... But not proof of innocence
"The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course. Nevertheless, this assertion is iterated verbatim in Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
So unless you are found guilty you are presumed to be innocent. Even while you are being charged, even while in court you have the right to be presumed innocent, so that must include the time you are an arguido or a former arguido in an archived case.
Some of those presumed innocent will be found guilty during a trial so presumption of innocence is not proof of innocence.
The crux of the matter is whether the archiving dispatch is the same as an acquittal. Under Article 277/1 it can be. Under Article 277/2 it isn't.
Which article of Pt. Law would permit the SC to alter a legal document in a criminal case, which had not been heard in court, adversely affecting the interests of those criminally defamed in a civil case?It would be like myself as a moderator, being able to correct obvious errors. The SC explain why it should have been archived Under Article 277/2 and not Under Article 277/1, and then proceed to argue using the changes they have just made.
"The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course. Nevertheless, this assertion is iterated verbatim in Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
So unless you are found guilty you are presumed to be innocent. Even while you are being charged, even while in court you have the right to be presumed innocent, so that must include the time you are an arguido or a former arguido in an archived case.
Some of those presumed innocent will be found guilty during a trial so presumption of innocence is not proof of innocence.
The crux of the matter is whether the archiving dispatch is the same as an acquittal. Under Article 277/1 it can be. Under Article 277/2 it isn't.
Even those who are acquitted are not judged 'innocent', they are judged 'not guilty'. An archiving dispatch can't declare someone is innocent either, although Duarte said it could and did. That was her mistake.
If you read my post you would see thst I posted acquittal is evidence if innocence not proof... Which it is
Do you have cite that duarte claimed it was proof of innocence... I would say you don't...
Some translations online use the word evidence... Sime proof.... It's not clear ...I cannot see duarte claiming proof of innocence... I'm sure you are, wrong... So do you have a cite
If you are not charged then it is not relevant.
Isabel Duarte is far from an idiot.
If you are not charged then it is not relevant.So is it your contention that only those charged should be presumed innocent, and everyone who has not been charged would need to prove their innocence before being considered innocent?
If you are not charged then it is not relevant.But surely it applies to suspects or arguidos as well.
But surely it applies to suspects or arguidos as well.
So is it your contention that only those charged should be presumed innocent, and everyone who has not been charged would need to prove their innocence before being considered innocent?
So is it your contention that only those charged should be presumed innocent, and everyone who has not been charged would need to prove their innocence before being considered innocent?Doesn't sound right does it?
Prove to whom ?It is the public perception I'm concerned with. If I'm presumed innocent I want everyone to presume the same.
If someone has not been charged then the courts will have no interest in that person
Even those who are acquitted are not judged 'innocent', they are judged 'not guilty'. An archiving dispatch can't declare someone is innocent either, although Duarte said it could and did. That was her mistake.
It is not the crux of the matter... It's irrelevant
Even those who are acquitted are not judged 'innocent', they are judged 'not guilty'. An archiving dispatch can't declare someone is innocent either, although Duarte said it could and did. That was her mistake.
An archiving under 277/1;
The Public Ministry shall, by dispatch, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that the crime was not confirmed, that the arguido did not practice it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmissible or that the procedure is legally inadmissible
The Prosecutor said when lifting the arguido statuses that it was because "there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code"
He didn't say the investigation had "gathered sufficient evidence" to show that "the arguido did not practice it in any way"
In my opinion the SC judges were correct to say the process was archived under 277/2
The investigation shall also be closed if it had not been possible for the Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence confirming the crime or who were the authors.
Not guilty means innocent though doesn't it? Innocent until proven guilty.
Not guity doesn't mean that innocent... This is why the claims that the mccanns havn't proved their innocence are stupid... Even being tried and found not guiltty dies not prove innocence... Barry George being an example
Not necessarily.
People have avoided being found not guilty, or had the case dismissed on a legal technicality, even though they may or may not be guilty.
Not guilty means innocent though doesn't it? Innocent until proven guilty.
I think you are under a gross misconception which is tainting your conclusions if you think duarte claimed that the archiving despatch was proof or a declaration of iinnocence... A cite is required
An archiving under 277/1;
The Public Ministry shall, by dispatch, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that the crime was not confirmed, that the arguido did not practice it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmissible or that the procedure is legally inadmissible
The Prosecutor said when lifting the arguido statuses that it was because "there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code"
He didn't say the investigation had "gathered sufficient evidence" to show that "the arguido did not practice it in any way"
In my opinion the SC judges were correct to say the process was archived under 277/2
The investigation shall also be closed if it had not been possible for the Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence confirming the crime or who were the authors.
Not necessarily.
People haove avoided being found not guilty, or had the case dismissed on a legal technicality, even though they may or may not be guilty.
Not in the acquittal of Barry George it didn't.
Here she's complaining about the SC ruling because it said the filing order wasn't proof of innocence as she claimed;
Just as (this STJ's Section) could not assert that it is not acceptable to assimilate the aforementioned filing order to a verified proof of innocence.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
She seems to then resort to repeating what her clients believed;
"As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance and in any way whatsoever"
If that's what the McCanns told her and she believed them and built her arguments on the information they gave her..............Whoops! The prosecutor said no such thing in the archiving dispatch.
Here she's complaining about the SC ruling because it said the filing order wasn't proof of innocence as she claimed;
Just as (this STJ's Section) could not assert that it is not acceptable to assimilate the aforementioned filing order to a verified proof of innocence.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
She seems to then resort to repeating what her clients believed;
"As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance and in any way whatsoever"
If that's what the McCanns told her and she believed them and built her arguments on the information they gave her..............Whoops! The prosecutor said no such thing in the archiving dispatch.
Here she's complaining about the SC ruling because it said the filing order wasn't proof of innocence as she claimed;
Just as (this STJ's Section) could not assert that it is not acceptable to assimilate the aforementioned filing order to a verified proof of innocence.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
She seems to then resort to repeating what her clients believed;
"As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance and in any way whatsoever"
If that's what the McCanns told her and she believed them and built her arguments on the information they gave her..............Whoops! The prosecutor said no such thing in the archiving dispatch.
The McCann's have never been arrested, they have never been found guilty of anything.
They have to prove the person is guilty, if they can't then they are innocent even if they believe them to be guilty.Maybe the words "presumed innocent" really mean "presumed guilty".
Arguing about words distracts attention from the point. The point is that the McCanns/Duarte believed and argued that the archiving dispatch could be used to support their claim of innocence. It couldn't.
Arguing about words distracts attention from the point. The point is that the McCanns/Duarte believed and argued that the archiving dispatch could be used to support their claim of innocence. It couldn't.What document should they have used instead?
Ive just looked at this and it seems I am totally correct...its on page 5....it doesnt say proof of innocence...it uses the word ..indicacio.....evidence of innocence...your facts are wrong...so your conclusions are wrong
I see little point in requesting a cite if it is then rejected because in your opinion you are a better translator than the person who translated the document.
In my opinion that's just an attempt at deflection.
I see little point in requesting a cite if it is then rejected because in your opinion you are a better translator than the person who translated the document.
In my opinion that's just an attempt at deflection.
What document should they have used instead?
So the SC is saying lack of evidence is not evidence of innocence... Yet lack of evidence is I would think the number one reason for acquittal.... And is therefore evidence... But not proof of innocenceYou missed the important bit.
None, because there are no documents which declare the McCanns are innocent.
The first judge said Amaral breached the McCanns right to the presumption of innocence because his freedom of expression, unlike that of other commentators, was restricted by the terms of his retirement from the PJ.
The Court of Appeal rejected that argument and overturned the decision.
The McCanns then appealed to the SC and argued that Amaral breached their right to the presumption of innocence because he contradicted the findings of the archiving dispatch.
The SC judges ruled that the archiving dispatch had been misunderstood, therefore it couldn't be used as the grounds to argue that Anaral breached the McCann's right to the presumption of innocence.
The mccanns do not need the archiving report to be entitled to the presumption of innocence... That is patently incorrect
It was their decision to use it, no-one else's.
It was their decision to use it, no-one else's.
You quoted..
"As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance and in any way whatsoever"
Who do you think made that statement.... I think you have made, a mistake
I think the statement was made to the SC by Dr Ricardo Correia Afonso. If you disagree I think it's up to you to demonstrate that your thinking is correct.
Please note: it would be helpful for members when posting quotes to include the link address with some guidance given if necessary to the place where quotes can be located. This will enable them to be read in context.
Thank you
In her appeal it does say this (with a google translation)So no talk of proving innocence
The filing in question took place because, during the investigation, it was established that the defendants did not make any facts of criminal relevance and any issue, and this conclusion was closed for reasons of fact
This was translated from
Oh arquivamento em causa teve lugar por, durante o inqerito er sido recolhida prova bastante de que os arguidos nao practicaram quaisquer factos co relevancia penal e a qualquer itulo, consubstancianado esta conclusia um arquivamento por razos de facto
Link http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
None, because there are no documents which declare the McCanns are innocent.
The first judge said Amaral breached the McCanns right to the presumption of innocence because his freedom of expression, unlike that of other commentators, was restricted by the terms of his retirement from the PJ.
The Court of Appeal rejected that argument and overturned the decision.
The McCanns then appealed to the SC and argued that Amaral breached their right to the presumption of innocence because he contradicted the findings of the archiving dispatch.
The SC judges ruled that the archiving dispatch had been misunderstood, therefore it couldn't be used as the grounds to argue that Anaral breached the McCann's right to the presumption of innocence.
The gist of the Archive Report was that there was inadequate evidence to bring charges against the parents in respect of Maddie's disappearance. Adding that the refusal of their friends to take part in a reconstruction was unhelpful to the parents in that they had lost an opportunity to demonstrate their innocence. Failing to demonstrate innocence speaks for itself regardless of the presumption of innocence.
Arguing about words distracts attention from the point. The point is that the McCanns/Duarte believed and argued that the archiving dispatch could be used to support their claim of innocence. It couldn't.What could individuals in their situation have used to support a claim of innocence, if anything?
The gist of the Archive Report was that there was inadequate evidence to bring charges against the parents in respect of Maddie's disappearance. Adding that the refusal of their friends to take part in a reconstruction was unhelpful to the parents in that they had lost an opportunity to demonstrate their innocence. Failing to demonstrate innocence speaks for itself regardless of the presumption of innocence.
According to the SC Isobel Duarte did put this in her application to the court
c. It shakes also the honour, the good name and the image of any innocent person, and already cleared before through the filing dispatch of a criminal investigation (the conclusion of which is that there is no element of proof nor evidence that the person committed any crime), a book, a documentary and an interview, extravagant in relation to the criminal investigation, and not even being part of those communicational supports the mention of that filing dispatch, but instead exactly the contrary of what this dispatch is postulating.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm
What could individuals in their situation have used to support a claim of innocence, if anything?
A PR spokesperson, perhaps????
It was their decision to use it, no-one else's.I have quoted from the Archiving report and the same words are used for Robert Murat as the McCanns. If he is cleared so are the McCanns.
I have quoted from the Archiving report and the same words are used for Robert Murat as the McCanns. If he is cleared so are the McCanns.This has been my argument for years, but apparently not so. Murat not cleared either, so it would be quite ok in Portugal for an ex-cop to write a book claiming that he abducted and murdered Madeleine and unless he could prove his innocence there’s absolutely nothing he could do about it, apparently...
This has been my argument for years, but apparently not so. Murat not cleared either, so it would be quite ok in Portugal for an ex-cop to write a book claiming that he abducted and murdered Madeleine and unless he could prove his innocence there’s absolutely nothing he could do about it, apparently...I nearly understood the issue the other day. Multiple issues to work through. In the end my mind is not capable of taking all the relevant information in. You'd need a legal background to comprehend it all.
This has been my argument for years, but apparently not so. Murat not cleared either, so it would be quite ok in Portugal for an ex-cop to write a book claiming that he abducted and murdered Madeleine and unless he could prove his innocence there’s absolutely nothing he could do about it, apparently...
The McCanns are not in a “quest for innocence”, what a daft idea.
Such is life.
Doesn't help McCanns in their quest for innocence, though.
The McCanns are not in a “quest for innocence”, what a daft idea.I would say the mccanns know they are innocent
I would say the mccanns know they are innocentIn the end it is a matter of evidence rather than opinion.
In the end it is a matter of evidence rather than opinion.
There's no evidence... No evidence against the mccannsWhen Amaral says "McCann" he is also including the others in the group isn't he? If you look at the Tapas 9 as a group can you still say there is no evidence?
When Amaral says "McCann" he is also including the others in the group isn't he? If you look at the Tapas 9 as a group can you still say there is no evidence?I think it's, about time posters faced reality.. It's difficult because they have to admit they are wrong.. The mccans and their friends are totally innocent IMO
For example the two versions of the timeline on the sticker book covers. They weren't drawn up by the McCanns (kate and Gerry) but by members of the Tapas 9.
When Amaral says "McCann" he is also including the others in the group isn't he? If you look at the Tapas 9 as a group can you still say there is no evidence?
For example the two versions of the timeline on the sticker book covers. They weren't drawn up by the McCanns (kate and Gerry) but by members of the Tapas 9.
I think it's, about time posters faced reality.. It's difficult because they have to admit they are wrong.. The mccans and their friends are totally innocent IMO
I have quoted from the Archiving report and the same words are used for Robert Murat as the McCanns. If he is cleared so are the McCanns.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/robert-murat-told-he-will-be-cleared-by-police-403256.htmlHow was he cleared, exactly?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483291/Robert-Murat-told-cleared-missing-Madeleine.html
It is not beyond the realms of possibility that Mr Murat was cleared long before the case was filed.
"Today the respected Portuguese weekly newspaper Sol reported that Mr Murat had now been told that police have no case against him.
But he is to remain an arguido until the investigation is complete to avoid compromising other ongoing inquiries, the newspaper said".
How was he cleared, exactly?
RTFMODPOYW
I have quoted from the Archiving report and the same words are used for Robert Murat as the McCanns. If he is cleared so are the McCanns.
I would say the mccanns know they are innocent
There's no evidence... No evidence against the mccanns
Untrue on both counts. No innocent parents would have behaved in the way in which they have, little wonder the Portuguese police suspected them of being involved.In your opinion.
In your opinion.
No, not in my opinion but fact. Innocent parents cooperate with the authorities.In effect you are stating it is a fact that the parents are not innocent, is this permissable on the forum you moderate?
The archiving dispatch said;
"there are no indications of the practise of any crime" (by the arguidos)
I would have thought a crime needed to be identified before anyone could be linked to it anyway.
On the other hand, there were unexplained contradictions in the evidence;
"Taking into account that there were certain points in the arguidos' and witnesses' statements that revealed, apparently at least, contradiction or that lacked physical confirmation"
In effect you are stating it is a fact that the parents are not innocent, is this permissable on the forum you moderate?Not Innocent - you would have to ask not innocent of what? Some people suggest that the Tapas 9 behaviour is accounted for the fact they were negligent in their childcare methods. So they can never be innocent of everything IMO. They themselves seem to admit to that.
This bit "Taking into account that there were certain points in the arguidos' and witnesses' statements that revealed, apparently at least, contradiction or that lacked physical confirmation" they are talking about the Tapas 9 as a group rather than all the other witnesses interviewed.
I suggest that the arguidos' and witnesses' = Tapas 9 plus Jez Wilkins.
Not Innocent - you would have to ask not innocent of what? Some people suggest that the Tapas 9 behaviour is accounted for the fact they were negligent in their childcare methods. So they can never be innocent of everything IMO. They themselves seem to admit to that.According to Angelo The McCanns did not cooperate with the authorities (tosh) and if they had been innocent they would have. As they had already been perfectly open about leaving the kids alone this is obviously not what Angelo is referring to, but is clearly stating as fact that the McCanns are guilty of something else which they are covering up. For consistency’s sake can we please know if such allegations 1) are permitted and 2) can be written without an IMO. Thanks.
Untrue on both counts. No innocent parents would have behaved in the way in which they have, little wonder the Portuguese police suspected them of being involved. The as yet untold story detailing the post disappearance attempts to pervert the course of justice in this case should make for interesting reading.Who are you accusing of attempting to pervert the course of justice here?
In effect you are stating it is a fact that the parents are not innocent, is this permissable on the forum you moderate?
Who are you accusing of attempting to pervert the course of justice here?
Wrong. What I stated as fact was that the McCann's behaviour was not consistent with what was normal in such situations.
I think you need to do a bit of back reading VS.As I understand you are accusing the mccanns... Is that correct... That's your opinion too
Wrong. What I stated as fact was that the McCann's behaviour was not consistent with what was normal in such situations.Oh that's an actual fact is it? Perhaps you could give me a cite for what constitutes normal behaviour in such situations, also a cite stating that it is a scientific and proven fact that the McCanns behaviour was incorrect. Thanks in advance.
I think you need to do a bit of back reading VS.Just spit it out.
Wrong. What I stated as fact was that the McCann's behaviour was not consistent with what was normal in such situations.
It was definitely different.
How many parents get the personal attention of a British Ambassador?
How many are involved with private detectives within 8 days of their child going missing?
How many parents apply to make their child a ward of court within 14 days of them going missing?
How many have the numbers of Chief Constables and the head of ACPO?
How many get supportive phone calls from Government ministers?
It was definitely different.How many parents have young children go missing when they are abroad? In any case at least two of those points above were not within the control of the parents anyway (the first and last point). There is nothing inconsistent in any of your points with the behaviour of innocent parents. FACT.
How many parents get the personal attention of a British Ambassador?
How many are involved with private detectives within 8 days of their child going missing?
How many parents apply to make their child a ward of court within 14 days of them going missing?
How many have the numbers of Chief Constables and the head of ACPO?
How many get supportive phone calls from Government ministers?
How many mothers when invited to police headquarters to answers some simple questions about the disappearance of their missing toddler refuse to answer?Did Kate refuse to co-operate in May 2007? How about June 2007? What about July 2007? How un-cooperative was she in August 2007? There was one solitary day when having already been questioned for hours she chose at the behest of her lawyer not to answer any further questions, and this means that "the parents did not co-operate with the investigation"? What utter rubbish.
How many mothers when invited to police headquarters to answers some simple questions about the disappearance of their missing toddler refuse to answer?you posted....in the circumsatnces......in these circumstances kate was absolutely correct not to answer any questions.....you are now taking the thread off topic...anothe forum rule ignored
It was definitely different.
How many parents get the personal attention of a British Ambassador?
How many are involved with private detectives within 8 days of their child going missing?
How many parents apply to make their child a ward of court within 14 days of them going missing?
How many have the numbers of Chief Constables and the head of ACPO?
How many get supportive phone calls from Government ministers?
Did Kate refuse to co-operate in May 2007? How about June 2007? What about July 2007? How un-cooperative was she in August 2007? There was one solitary day when having already been questioned for hours she chose at the behest of her lawyer not to answer any further questions, and this means that "the parents did not co-operate with the investigation"? What utter rubbish.
We don't know for sure why Kate McCann wasn't interviewed on 10th May despite being called in by the PJ on that day.Did Amaral claim she refused to cooperate on that day?
Wrong. What I stated as fact was that the McCann's behaviour was not consistent with what was normal in such situations.
How many parents have young children go missing when they are abroad? In any case at least two of those points above were not within the control of the parents anyway (the first and last point). There is nothing inconsistent in any of your points with the behaviour of innocent parents. FACT.
I made no comment about innocence, I just said they were different.Different to whom? Who are you comparing them to?
It was definitely different.
How many parents get the personal attention of a British Ambassador?
How many are involved with private detectives within 8 days of their child going missing?
How many parents apply to make their child a ward of court within 14 days of them going missing?
How many have the numbers of Chief Constables and the head of ACPO?
How many get supportive phone calls from Government ministers?
Maybe they got the attention of the British Ambassador as their child had disappeared?All these remarkable resources - results? Nada
I would expect they had advice about whether to make Madeleine a ward of court.
It was surely up to the Chief Constables and the head of ACPO whether or not they give their numbers to the McCann's.
I believe Sherry Blair was interested in the amber alert or something to do with missing children? Of course they get involved it makes them more popular to the public.
In what way did they get involved with Private detectives 8 days after Madeleine went missing?
Control Risks Group.Who got them on the scene? Was it Mark Warner? So was it Mark Warner controlling their risks?
Control Risks Group.
Who got them on the scene? Was it Mark Warner? So was it Mark Warner controlling their risks?
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id376.htm
Private security team hired by Kate and Gerry McCann for secret investigation, 24 September 2007 ( report date)
Control Risks is a risk consultancy firm which specialises in corporate security.
Financed anonymously, Control Risks Group acted as an independent group of advisers with experience in dealing with law enforcement in a foreign country.
Kate McCann wrote in her book that they ...
- Arranged for the forensic testing of the twins hair for the presence of drugs since the Portuguese press was alive with the great CALPOL allegation which was a complete nonsense then and now.
- Took statements from the McCanns because of the concern that the original statements might have lost much in translation ...
- Control Risks introduced them to a former intelligence officer who was now working as a kidnap negotiator and counsellor
What makes you think they were Private Detectives employed to look for Madeleine?
Now why would a Risk Consultancy company be employing detectives?I thought private detectives were not allowed to operate in Portugal on a live police investigation?
By the Sunday evening, we found ourselves giving our statements again, this time to a couple of detectives from Control Risks [madeleine]
I thought private detectives were not allowed to operate in Portugal on a live police investigation?
When did the police find out about them?No idea.
Control Risks Group.At whose behest were CRG brought in?
At whose behest were CRG brought in?I see it has been cover on the forum 5 years ago. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3083.msg113421#msg113421 "Topic: No 1 - The Search for Madeleine McCann and Control Risks Group (CRG)" Was that the first topic covered on the McCann case on this forum?
Who got them on the scene? Was it Mark Warner? So was it Mark Warner controlling their risks?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1564010/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-hired-detectives.html
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/mccanns-hire-an-ex-sas-team-to-hunt-for-madeleine-6647519.html
Now why would a Risk Consultancy company be employing detectives?
By the Sunday evening, we found ourselves giving our statements again, this time to a couple of detectives from Control Risks [madeleine]
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1564010/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-hired-detectives.htmlWithin 8 days of Madeleine’s disappearance? I don’t think so.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/mccanns-hire-an-ex-sas-team-to-hunt-for-madeleine-6647519.html
The first link: "By Caroline Gammell in Praia da Luz12:01AM BST 24 Sep 2007
Kate and Gerry McCann have hired a firm of private investigators to help them track their missing daughter, Madeleine, it has emerged."
CRG were at PDL in May 2007 so I would say what happened in Sept is possibly a separate assignment.
From the second link headline: "McCanns hire an ex-SAS team to hunt for Madeleine
Sunday 23 September 2007 23:07"
The first link: "By Caroline Gammell in Praia da Luz12:01AM BST 24 Sep 2007
Kate and Gerry McCann have hired a firm of private investigators to help them track their missing daughter, Madeleine, it has emerged."
CRG were at PDL in May 2007 so I would say what happened in Sept is possibly a separate assignment.
From the second link headline: "McCanns hire an ex-SAS team to hunt for Madeleine
Sunday 23 September 2007 23:07"
From my previously posted linkwith not for.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id376.htm
(about a dozen lines down)
"A source close to the couple's legal team confirmed that CRG had been working with the family since May but refused to discuss how the company was being paid "
with not for.
From my previously posted link
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id376.htm
(about a dozen lines down)
"A source close to the couple's legal team confirmed that CRG had been working with the family since May but refused to discuss how the company was being paid "
It says roughly the same in one of the links I posted. Leaving one with the opinion no one reads the links properly.The question is why should we have to read the whole link to get the gist of the argument. I'd prefer that the a portion of the text from the link be copied into the post detailing the point being made.
Did I say otherwise ?How was the CRG getting notification of Madeleine sightings in other countries?
However, from the same link
"Mr McCann first contacted private investigation companies less than three weeks after his daughter was reported missing on May 3 because of concerns that the Portuguese police were not properly checking out all reported sightings. But he had publicly to deny that they were using private detectives when Portuguese police said it would be against the law."
The question is why should we have to read the whole link to get the gist of the argument. I'd prefer that the a portion of the text from the link be copied into the post detailing the point being made.
It is what I do.
It will help you become better informed and stop complaint it has been taken out of context.
Show me in the rules where it says what you are advancing.
Why would the mccanns want to employ private, investigators to search for Maddie if they already knew, she, was dead...... The link also highlights the FSS anger at the misinterpretion of the, DNA results by the PJ
The word "anger" is yours. It does not appear in the article wrt FSS.
The word used is "exaggeration" in quotes.
It says roughly the same in one of the links I posted. Leaving one with the opinion no one reads the links properly.
The question is why should we have to read the whole link to get the gist of the argument. I'd prefer that the a portion of the text from the link be copied into the post detailing the point being made.
It is what I do.
It will help you become better informed and stop complaint it has been taken out of context.I never said it was a rule, just a suggestion.
Show me in the rules where it says what you are advancing.
No, Love, that won't do. You have to read every painful word. Or don't comment at all, at all. We are now into the really serious stuff. So get serious.You are so right, why am I procrastinating
They were angry... I've actually spoken to someone from the FSS;
British forensic scientists angrily criticised Portuguese police for "overinterpreting" DNA results
Best if you read the whole of the link .....
I've copied and pasted the relevant part of the link as Rob suggested... Makes it easier for you to follow... Now what were you saying about my use if the word anger... Lol
;
I would expect nothing less.
You are still faced with an allegation by the Standard and another allegation by The Telegraph saying in essence different things.
Your use of the word anger is interpolated from an allegation by The Standard and the use of the old appeal to a higher authority dodge your thrust being that the FSS were angry and you know it because you spoke to them?
Faites vos jeux.
All we need to know about about DNA hooha is that FSS said it was inconclusive.
Didn't Amaral say he shouldn't have sent the samples to a British Forensic team or similar words. I don't know what he was implying but I can guess.
I found this but I'm sure I read something where he was more blunt in what he meant. -
“We were naive and too diplomatic”, he added. The desire to please the British led investigators to send trace evidence for testing to a UK-based laboratory “so that we would not be accused of manipulation in the final result”.
British forensic scientists angrily criticised Portuguese police for "overinterpreting" DNA results
the above is a quote from The Standard.....from the link you posted...did you not read the article
what we need to know about the dna evidence...it was inconclusive....the PJ seemed to think it was conclusive...tahts why the FSS were angry FFS
The word "anger" is yours. It does not appear in the article wrt FSS.
The word used is "exaggeration" in quotes.
Again... The word ..angrily ....appears in the quote... So when I say the link highlights the ..anger... Of the FSS... That's probably one of the most accurate...true.. posts made on the forum... You have obviously missed it
Obviously.You seem to have missed that too....
Just what was it I missed?
You saying "angrily" and "anger" are synonymous ?
You seem to have missed that too....
How can you be sure that whoever this possible person wasn't reacting "angrily" as he had already had 100 calls from the media that morning. You can have no proof of the reason for their anger (if indeed this is true).In the context of the interview I'd say angry angrily etc refers to the interpretation of the FSS results.
Again... The word ..angrily ....appears in the quote... So when I say the link highlights the ..anger... Of the FSS... That's probably one of the most accurate...true.. posts made on the forum... You have obviously missed it
a quote from an unknown source in a newspaper has as much integrity as a pear claiming to be an apple because it shares a space in an orchard.
Are we to belive you spoke to the FSS about the results , theygave them to you and you know they were angry about something?
seriously ? heehee OK.
You can believe anything you want... I have discussed the case, with someone who worked at the FSS... I obviously can't reveal anything that we discussed.
Are you sure it wasn't "FGS"?
SO this person broke the data protection act? cool.
I spoke to a person who spoke to God about this and God replied back 'WTF'.... This wasn't your average Goddy kind of God. this one has attitood! &^^&*