What is the lie in Amarals book. The truth of the lie.

[G-Unit]

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.

[Venturi Swirl]

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?

[Mr Gray]

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.

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

[ShiningInLuz]

As part of the process of the investigation of Joanna Yeate's murder her landlord, Christopher Jefferies was detained by the police for questioning.

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.

[Brietta]

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#msg506720

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.

[ShiningInLuz]

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#msg506720

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.

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

[Venturi Swirl]

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?

[G-Unit]

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

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.

[G-Unit]

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?

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.

[Mr Gray]

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.

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

[Venturi Swirl]

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. 

[G-Unit]

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wOKQTsrpd4

[Mr Gray]

He flatly refuses to discuss the first investigation. He is speaking only about his team's work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wOKQTsrpd4

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

[Mr Gray]

He flatly refuses to discuss the first investigation. He is speaking only about his team's work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wOKQTsrpd4

Again do you have a cite that he means no evidence from his investigation and he is ignoring evidence from the previous one...