UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: faithlilly on July 16, 2013, 11:18:05 PM
-
An excellent starting point for anyone interested in the McCann case and not read nearly widely enough.
http://madeleinemccannaffair.blogspot.co.uk/
-
Ididn't think were allowed to post this sort of thing?
It is very similar to forum stuff and one sided arguments. Admin is this allowed and if so, why not quotes from forums?
Please
-
Actually, I rather hope admin. allows this to stand, as it's a good example of the flawed reasoning and misconceptions on which the so-called sceptics base their arguments.
Perhaps this forum should be reminded that things have moved on since this was written. Scotland Yard have stated thus:
Neither her parents or any of the members of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects.
-
If this is allowed, then I would like snoops excellent classic piece about motivation, history, opportunity etc.
My understanding is that that wasn't allowed here. Cant think why. It was factual, aclaimed by all, and wasn't one sided at all.
Do you remember that CG ?
A briiliant analysis.
-
Goodness me ... I't's taken me quite a while to read the complete content of the op's link
... and what a rational, logical , and refreshing read it is
I challenge anyone to take that on ... point by point
Go on ... convince us sceptics by deconstructing the analysis provided by the link in the op
please do .. point by point
-
Not necessary. It's been done before, and even more recently by no less an authority than Scotland Yard, who stated thus:
Neither her parents or any of the members of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects.
-
Not necessary. It's been done before, and even more recently by no less an authority than Scotland Yard, who stated thus:
Neither her parents or any of the members of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects.
OK ... you defer the challenge
Anyone else ?
-
The investigation has moved on, Icabodcrane, since the op was written, so any challenge to Blacksmith's subjective ruminations are irrelevant now.
In fact, given that Scotland Yard have stated that they are investigating an abduction, and in light of their statement above, there is little more that can be said about this matter, from either side of the divide.
-
The investigation has moved on, Icabodcrane, since the op was written, so any challenge to Blacksmith's subjective ruminations are irrelevant now.
In fact, given that Scotland Yard have stated that they are investigating an abduction, and in light of their statement above, there is little more that can be said about this matter, from either side of the divide.
I absolutely agree that is where SY say they are at the moment but of course i am sure you accept that the course and focus of investigations change over time. They should move with the evidence.
After all it was only a month or so before the McCann's were made arguidos that the PJ said they weren't suspects.
Equally i recall one of Redwood's statements which said they analysed i think it was two thirds of the documentation, so clearly the review of already gathered evidence is not complete let alone the gathering of new evidence.
I can see why the Yard appear to be pursuing the abduction scenario and my logic for that is probably best saved for another post.
However it must be said that if they pursue abduction and bring in a suspect or indeed take one to trial they will need more evidence than is in the files, and short of a confession, a defence lawyer worth his salt will have a field day.
Imagine the questioning in Court:
Prosecution: Can you tell us how you entered the apartment
Defendant: I did not enter the apartment and there is no evidence i did
Prosecution: Can you tell us how you sedated the child
Defendant: I did not sedate the child and there is no evidence i did
Prosecution: Can you tell us how you removed the child from PDL
Defendant: I did not remove the child from PDL and there is no evidence i did
And so on and so forth.
-
I absolutely agree that is where SY say they are at the moment but of course i am sure you accept that the course and focus of investigations change over time. They should move with the evidence.
Quite. I think we can be pretty confident that that is exactly what SY are doing, which is why it is a pointless exercise to analyse what Blacksmith - a blogger who knows no more about the case than any other private citizen - wrote four years ago.
-
I absolutely agree that is where SY say they are at the moment but of course i am sure you accept that the course and focus of investigations change over time. They should move with the evidence.
Quite. I think we can be pretty confident that that is exactly what SY are doing, which is why it is a pointless exercise to analyse what Blacksmith - a blogger who knows no more about the case than any other private citizen - wrote four years ago.
Yes, but of course we must ask what happens IF at the end of chasing the abduction scenario and IF they find no further concrete evidence, would you be happy, given the resources of two seperate police forces had been unable to find any firm evidence of an abductor or abduction, for the focus then of the investigation to go back to the McCann's and their group of friends and their statements?
If of course there is new evidence found to point at abduction then all well and good, let's hear and see it and then these discussions can move on.
But if not and there is nowhere for the yard to go in terms of abduction, would you support a look back at the actions and statements of the Mccann's and their travelling party?
-
Yes, but of course we must ask what happens IF at the end of chasing the abduction scenario and IF they find no further concrete evidence, would you be happy, given the resources of two seperate police forces had been unable to find any firm evidence of an abductor or abduction, for the focus then of the investigation to go back to the McCann's and their group of friends and their statements?
If of course there is new evidence found to point at abduction then all well and good, let's hear and see it and then these discussions can move on.
But if not and there is nowhere for the yard to go in terms of abduction, would you support a look back at the actions and statements of the Mccann's and their travelling party?
Wouldn't the Met have started with checking out the T9?
-
Yes, but of course we must ask what happens IF at the end of chasing the abduction scenario and IF they find no further concrete evidence, would you be happy, given the resources of two seperate police forces had been unable to find any firm evidence of an abductor or abduction, for the focus then of the investigation to go back to the McCann's and their group of friends and their statements?
If of course there is new evidence found to point at abduction then all well and good, let's hear and see it and then these discussions can move on.
But if not and there is nowhere for the yard to go in terms of abduction, would you support a look back at the actions and statements of the Mccann's and their travelling party?
Surely as part of the investigation the McCanns and their friends will have been re-interviewed very early on.
Even if there was nothing more they could add to the info already given, the SY officers would surely benefit from meeting them face to face thus having the opportunity to personally weigh them up - by talking to them and observing them through experienced policemen's eyes. I would have thought that was an essential part of the enquiry.
If Amaral had done the same, then maybe we wouldn't be here now?
-
Yes, but of course we must ask what happens IF at the end of chasing the abduction scenario and IF they find no further concrete evidence, would you be happy, given the resources of two seperate police forces had been unable to find any firm evidence of an abductor or abduction, for the focus then of the investigation to go back to the McCann's and their group of friends and their statements?
If of course there is new evidence found to point at abduction then all well and good, let's hear and see it and then these discussions can move on.
But if not and there is nowhere for the yard to go in terms of abduction, would you support a look back at the actions and statements of the Mccann's and their travelling party?
All those hypotheticals! I am quite prepared to wait patiently for SY to continue their investigation in their way in their own time.
And I agree with Carana in the subsequent post that it is logical to assume that SY have already made an in depth investigation into the McCanns and their friends in order to be able to rule them out of any complicity in the disappearance of Madeleine.
-
If there was no evidence of an abduction SY would not be embarking on a £ multi million investigation which was pushed for by the McCanns themselves.
-
Wouldn't the Met have started with checking out the T9?
Why would they have started with that? The PJ went that way and look where it got them, pilloried in the press.
We have had no reports from anyone that the T9 have been re-interviewed and i'm sure had they been it would have come out.
Is it not beyond the relams of possibility that the Yard are working "back to front". Go through the abduction scenario and leads first before moving on IF that draws a blank.
At least that way the Yard could genuinely say "look we have tested the abduction theory and exhausted all leads, as such we must now seek clarification and test your statements".
That then would remove the possible allegation from the group that " they (the police) are persecuting us again, just like the PJ, when there are so many abduction leads they haven't followed".
I'm not saying that is what will happen, i don't know and none of us do, however given the nature of the case and the PJ's investigation of it, i can see the sense in starting with an abduction hypothesis and working backwards if neccesary.
-
All those hypotheticals! I am quite prepared to wait patiently for SY to continue their investigation in their way in their own time.
And I agree with Carana in the subsequent post that it is logical to assume that SY have already made an in depth investigation into the McCanns and their friends in order to be able to rule them out of any complicity in the disappearance of Madeleine.
The fact that the Portuguese investigation was incomplete and the fact the review hasn't finished and the re-investigation by the Yard has just started means, by definition, any discussion about outcomes is entirely hypothetical.
Any assumption made that the Mccann's and their group have been fully re-investigated by SY is a hypothetical one given that this has not been confirmed either by the Yard, the Mccann's or the group themselves.
They have said that the Mccann's and the group are not suspects.
It's not the same as syaing they have been fully re-investigated.
I am also quite preapred and comfortable to let the Yard contiune their work and let's see what happens.
If an abductor is found, then terrific, and i'll be extremely interested to see the evidence the Yard brings to Court.
One question which appears not to have been asked nor answered is what happens if after following these 38 persons of interest, nothing comes to solve the case. What then?
I repeat if that happens will you be comfortable with the yard then going back to the group?
-
If there was no evidence of an abduction SY would not be embarking on a £ multi million investigation which was pushed for by the McCanns themselves.
I agree. Why on earth would the McCanns have pushed for this investigation by the Yard if they were complicit in Madeleine's disappearance. It would be like a turkey voting for Christmas.
-
If there was no evidence of an abduction SY would not be embarking on a £ multi million investigation which was pushed for by the McCanns themselves.
Spot on Angelo.
-
Goodness me ... I't's taken me quite a while to read the complete content of the op's link
... and what a rational, logical , and refreshing read it is
I challenge anyone to take that on ... point by point
Go on ... convince us sceptics by deconstructing the analysis provided by the link in the op
please do .. point by point
Hi icabod. I have neither the time nor the inclination to debunk this Cracked Mirror piece. As far as I'm concerned, it's another vanity piece from yet another person who seems to think that they know better than the PT Attorney General.
The author is implying that the McCanns and the holiday party have lied. I will just put this question to the forum: Do you seriously believe that no-one will have cracked? Come on! Carrying the burden of a terrible secret for all these years?
-
I agree. Why on earth would the McCanns have pushed for this investigation by the Yard if they were complicit in Madeleine's disappearance. It would be like a turkey voting for Christmas.
SY (and all other forces around the country) perform high cost investigations all the time which are not solved.
As far as i am aware the Mccann's pushed for a review of the PJ case.
It can of course be argued they did so to continue the search for their daughter, but equally it can also be argued they pushed for it so the review would give them the "exoneration" the PJ investigation and the AG report failed to give them and for once and for all to remove the black cloud which still hangs over them from that case.
It would of course been easier for them to perform the reconstruction that the PJ were asking for as part of the Portuguese penal code that they refused to participate in.
Had they agreed, then the case would not have been shelved at the point it was in the first place.
-
Hi icabod. I have neither the time nor the inclination to debunk this Cracked Mirror piece. As far as I'm concerned, it's another vanity piece from yet another person who seems to think that they know better than the PT Attorney General.
The author is implying that the McCanns and the holiday party have lied. I will just put this question to the forum: Do you seriously believe that no-one will have cracked? Come on! Carrying the burden of a terrible secret for all these years?
How do you know the Mccanns told the truth about what happens, along with their acquaintances ?
You don't of course. For you it is a matter of faith, no more.
-
Hi icabod. I have neither the time nor the inclination to debunk this Cracked Mirror piece. As far as I'm concerned, it's another vanity piece from yet another person who seems to think that they know better than the PT Attorney General.
The author is implying that the McCanns and the holiday party have lied. I will just put this question to the forum: Do you seriously believe that no-one will have cracked? Come on! Carrying the burden of a terrible secret for all these years?
Well without going into the detail of who the AG in Portugal is (NOT a judge), and without going into the facts of the libel case where the Judges ruled that the PJ's theory was a valid police led theory based on the facts gathered and one of equal validity to the AG report, even the AG himself said:
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
That is also echoed by the judge in an actual court (rather than a public prosecutor) in the libel trial who also, in round about terms, accused them of lying.
-
Well without going into the detail of who the AG in Portugal is (NOT a judge), and without going into the facts of the libel case where the Judges ruled that the PJ's theory was a valid police led theory based on the facts gathered and one of equal validity to the AG report, even the AG himself said:
That is also echoed by the judge in an actual court (rather than a public prosecutor) in the libel trial who also, in round about terms, accused them of lying.
Yet they weren't even arrested. Funny that, isn't it?
-
SY (and all other forces around the country) perform high cost investigations all the time which are not solved.
As far as i am aware the Mccann's pushed for a review of the PJ case.
It can of course be argued they did so to continue the search for their daughter, but equally it can also be argued they pushed for it so the review would give them the "exoneration" the PJ investigation and the AG report failed to give them and for once and for all to remove the black cloud which still hangs over them from that case.
It would of course been easier for them to perform the reconstruction that the PJ were asking for as part of the Portuguese penal code that they refused to participate in.
Had they agreed, then the case would not have been shelved at the point it was in the first place.
Kate and Gerry McCann did not refuse to take part in a reconstruction.
-
Yet they weren't even arrested. Funny that, isn't it?
Remember this, a lack of evidence, does not show a crime was not committed.
and before you say it, that works both ways.
So on that basis, if you want to me to include abduction, then you have to accept the possibility Madeleine had an accident in the apartment.
-
We have had no reports from anyone that the T9 have been re-interviewed and i'm sure had they been it would have come out.
Of course not - SY are not obliged to keep us informed of the nitty-gritty of their investigation!
As for the rest of your post - wishful thinking on your part.
-
Remember this, a lack of evidence, does not show a crime was not committed.
and before you say it, that works both ways.
So on that basis, if you want to me to include abduction, then you have to accept the possibility Madeleine had an accident in the apartment.
I don't accept the possibility that Madeleine had an accident in the apartment. How on earth do you imagine that they managed to dispose of Madeleine and then go to dinner as if nothing had happened? All in a matter of a couple of hours, without access to a car in a foreign country.
-
Yet they weren't even arrested. Funny that, isn't it?
Yet the reconstruction would have highlighted these discrepancies and the group refused to take part in it!
Funny that, isn't it??
-
Kate and Gerry McCann did not refuse to take part in a reconstruction.
Yes, they did and their lawyers blocked them from taking part.
-
Yes, they did and their lawyers blocked them from taking part.
I think you are mistaken, Albertini. Perhaps you could produce a cite for that?
-
We have had no reports from anyone that the T9 have been re-interviewed and i'm sure had they been it would have come out.
Of course not - SY are not obliged to keep us informed of the nitty-gritty of their investigation!
As for the rest of your post - wishful thinking on your part.
So we cannot take it as read that they have been re-interviewed, then can we?
Which is what you stated.
What part of the rest of my post is "wishful thinking"?
Either these leads will lead somewhere and new evidence will come forward.
Or failing that all possible abduction leads and scenarios will lead to nought.
Those are surely the only two options.
I covered the first outcome in my post which you described as "wishful thinking".
You haven't provided an answer to the second outcome.
Given that these are the only two outcomes of the current leads i fail to see how you could dismiss them as "wishful thinking".
-
I think you are mistaken, Albertini. Perhaps you could produce a cite for that?
No i am not!
April 6th 2008, some three weeks after the formal requests started coming through to the T7 to attend a reconstruction Clarence Mitchell said in the People:
Byline: By TOM CARLIN
"If they returned now to Portugal it would be a distraction and would put pressure on police. Their lawyers would block it anyway.
"But once their arguido status has been lifted, they will feel differently. "
Yet when their Arguido status was lifted they did not seek to go back to perform it, why is that?
-
I don't accept the possibility that Madeleine had an accident in the apartment. How on earth do you imagine that they managed to dispose of Madeleine and then go to dinner as if nothing had happened? All in a matter of a couple of hours, without access to a car in a foreign country.
You ask me to have an open mind, yet yours is closed.
Says everything.
One dimensional as with all true mccannites.
-
Well without going into the detail of who the AG in Portugal is (NOT a judge), and without going into the facts of the libel case where the Judges ruled that the PJ's theory was a valid police led theory based on the facts gathered and one of equal validity to the AG report, even the AG himself said:
That is also echoed by the judge in an actual court (rather than a public prosecutor) in the libel trial who also, in round about terms, accused them of lying.
What Libel trial? - there hasn't been one yet, which is why his book ban was able to be overturned - i.e. because libel had not yet been established.
-
Well without going into the detail of who the AG in Portugal is (NOT a judge), and without going into the facts of the libel case where the Judges ruled that the PJ's theory was a valid police led theory based on the facts gathered and one of equal validity to the AG report, even the AG himself said:
Could you clarify?
-
What Libel trial? - there hasn't been one yet, which is why his book ban was able to be overturned - i.e. because libel had not yet been established.
The book banning/ libel trial went further than that if you read the judgment.
Here are some quotes from the summary judgement:
"What is certain is that since the start of the investigation, there were incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements, the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them, the movements of people immediately after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?), etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the aforementioned sniffer dogs."
"Where Amaral differs from the Prosecutors who wrote the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he [Amaral] makes of those facts."
"We need,, to stress the following: the facts that led to the applicants' constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not sufficiently valued by the Public Ministry's Prosecutors to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen from a different angle, may lead to a different conclusion from that of the prosecutors."
Suggestive data ("indications") that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that can legitimately be published as a book, as long as the interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved. In our view that said interpretation does not offend the applicants' rights."
That is clear indication that the verdict determined the book and indeed Amaral's thesis was not libellous and Amaral has that judgement tucked in his pocket next time round.
Furthermore it opens the door to the fact that an actual Court, not a public prosecutor, may make a different decision regarding the gathered facts than the AG did.
But without the AG referring it to a Court that could not be tested.
-
Could you clarify?
The Archiving report was written by a public prosecutor, a lawyer, a public servant.
He has no power to determine guilt or innocence in a legal sense. Only a Court and a Judge can do that.
If you look at my previous post regarding the final Judges report in the book banning/libel trial you will see what real judges have to say about the facts gathered.
They say that the archiving report was an INTERPRETATION of the facts and that Amaral's (and the PJ's) interpretation was an equally valid thesis under law.
-
I agree. Why on earth would the McCanns have pushed for this investigation by the Yard if they were complicit in Madeleine's disappearance. It would be like a turkey voting for Christmas.
I like your analogy Rachel. 8((()*/
-
No i am not!
April 6th 2008, some three weeks after the formal requests started coming through to the T7 to attend a reconstruction Clarence Mitchell said in the People:
Yet when their Arguido status was lifted they did not seek to go back to perform it, why is that?
I don't set much store with what newspapers say. I prefer to have a look at the files, which say something a bit different. I believe it was a letter/E-mail from Rogerio Alves to the PT powers-that-be, indicating dates etc. I don't have the appropriate page ref to hand, but I can find it (unless someone can help in the meantime).
-
I like your analogy Rachel. 8((()*/
Cheers, Angelo!
-
I don't set much store with what newspapers say. I prefer to have a look at the files, which say something a bit different. I believe it was a letter/E-mail from Rogerio Alves to the PT powers-that-be, indicating dates etc. I don't have the appropriate page ref to hand, but I can find it (unless someone can help in the meantime).
But that was a quote from the Mccann's press spokesman!
Are you saying you do not believe it?
Does that mean we should not believe anything Clarence Mitchell has said on the McCann's behalf?
If so i would be happy to go over with you the reasons why you think they offered to go back alongside your supporting evidence.
-
The book banning/ libel trial went further than that if you read the judgment.
That is clear indication that the verdict determined the book and indeed Amaral's thesis was not libellous and Amaral has that judgement tucked in his pocket next time round.
Furthermore it opens the door to the fact that an actual Court, not a public prosecutor, may make a different decision regarding the gathered facts than the AG did.
But without the AG referring it to a Court that could not be tested.
I think you are wrong. If a court has decreed that the content of Amaral's book is not libellous, why are the MCanns taking him to court on the grounds that the content of his book is libellous? That would be a pointless exercise. And why if a court has already proved that Amaral's book is not libellous, has he kept delaying the case? One would think he wouldn't be able to get to court quick enough if he knew it was in the bag - so that he could unfreeze his assets.
-
But that was a quote from the Mccann's press spokesman!
Are you saying you do not believe it?
Does that mean we should not believe anything Clarence Mitchell has said on the McCann's behalf?
If so i would be happy to go over with you the reasons why you think they offered to go back alongside your supporting evidence.
I have no idea what Clarence Mitchell may or may not have said. In the meantime, if you have a look at "09 01 Apensos IX Vol I Page 139" in the files you will see that McCanns did not refuse. Link below, scroll down to the bottom.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm#oa9p139
-
I have no idea what Clarence Mitchell may or may not have said. In the meantime, if you have a look at "09 01 Apensos IX Vol I Page 139" in the files you will see that McCanns did not refuse. Link below, scroll down to the bottom.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm#oa9p139
Do you have the date of that email?
-
Do you have the date of that email?
I don't have the date of the document, but I would hazard a guess that the dates mentioned by Alves would be, inter alia, to tie in with the requests made to the holiday party to do a recon in May 2008.
-
I absolutely agree that is where SY say they are at the moment but of course i am sure you accept that the course and focus of investigations change over time. They should move with the evidence.
After all it was only a month or so before the McCann's were made arguidos that the PJ said they weren't suspects.
Equally i recall one of Redwood's statements which said they analysed i think it was two thirds of the documentation, so clearly the review of already gathered evidence is not complete let alone the gathering of new evidence.
I can see why the Yard appear to be pursuing the abduction scenario and my logic for that is probably best saved for another post.
However it must be said that if they pursue abduction and bring in a suspect or indeed take one to trial they will need more evidence than is in the files, and short of a confession, a defence lawyer worth his salt will have a field day.
Imagine the questioning in Court:
Prosecution: Can you tell us how you entered the apartment
Defendant: I did not enter the apartment and there is no evidence i did
Prosecution: Can you tell us how you sedated the child
Defendant: I did not sedate the child and there is no evidence i did
Prosecution: Can you tell us how you removed the child from PDL
Defendant: I did not remove the child from PDL and there is no evidence i did
And so on and so forth.
After all it was only a month or so before the McCann's were made arguidos that the PJ said they weren't suspects.
That was before the dogs.
The dogs are discredited.
What, now, is there left that says themccannsdunit?
-
After all it was only a month or so before the McCann's were made arguidos that the PJ said they weren't suspects.
That was before the dogs.
The dogs are discredited.
What, now, is there left that says themccannsdunit?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-478885/Madeleine-Top-policeman-inisists-McCanns-victims-suspects.html
The story above appeared on 2nd September, less than a week before the McCanns were made arguidos or suspects.
-
After all it was only a month or so before the McCann's were made arguidos that the PJ said they weren't suspects.
That was before the dogs.
The dogs are discredited.
What, now, is there left that says themccannsdunit?
No the dogs aren't discredited, only in your and your fellow acolytes minds is that view perceived.
As to arguido status the mccanns chose that by their actions.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-478885/Madeleine-Top-policeman-inisists-McCanns-victims-suspects.html
The story above appeared on 2nd September, less than a week before the McCanns were made arguidos or suspects.
... and before the proper forensic results were in. Results which proved worthless in backing up Almeida's now-superseded interim report. The interim report which is still being promoted by the doubters.
-
The dogs weren't discredited. Prof Harrison knew, before calling the dogs, it was impossible to find human remains in the flat from where Madeleine vanished. He thought some blood residue could be found. It wasn't. You can fall and die without bleeding, at least not internally. Eddie alerted to death but that death couldn't be forensically determined. No evidence in court but an orientation for the investigation that made the AG link it to the arguido status.
-
The dogs weren't discredited. Prof Harrison knew, before calling the dogs, it was impossible to find human remains in the flat from where Madeleine vanished. He thought some blood residue could be found. It wasn't. You can fall and die without bleeding, at least not internally. Eddie alerted to death but that death couldn't be forensically determined. No evidence in court but an orientation for the investigation that made the AG link it to the arguido status.
No Anne, there is no proof that Eddie alerted to 'death 'because Eddie could alert to body parts/blood/fluids from living people. Why do you keep ignoring that fact?
-
Benice, you keep insisting Eddie could alert to "living" blood, nails, hairs, cadaverine even, skin cells, etc. This is not what Mr Grime says. But never mind.
In the corner of the bedroom, on top of the balcony, in the flower bed, there was no nail, no hair, no blood, no fluid, no nothing in spite of forensic examination.
What did the dog alert to ?
-
Benice, you keep insisting Eddie could alert to "living" blood, nails, hairs, cadaverine even, skin cells, etc. This is not what Mr Grime says. But never mind.
In the corner of the bedroom, on top of the balcony, in the flower bed, there was no nail, no hair, no blood, no fluid, no nothing in spite of forensic examination.
What did the dog alert to ?
On the contrary Anne I am repeating Martin Grime's claims - (although I personally have never mentioned skin cells) . They are not my assertions they are his - corroborated and confirmed by other experts in his field.
How do we know no nails, hair or blood had been in those places you mention? According to Martin Grime his dogs could detect the tiniest traces which may have been deposited many decades before the 3rd May - in fact from so long ago that the actual material itself had decayed away leaving only a residual scent. Therefore what Eddie alerted to may have been long gone.
So without a body we don't know if Eddie alerted to the scent from a dead body or to body bits from a live one -which is why Martin Grime repeatedly reminds us in his statements that without corroborating evidence the alerts have no value.
-
So without a body we don't know if Eddie alerted to the scent from a dead body or to body bits from a live one
Those are your words, Benice, not Mr Grime's, this is your belief, not his knowledge.
This is not fair.
And the only explanation you have for Eddie alerting to volatile molecules of decay in the 5A is to suggest some kind of Clever Hans !
-
I think you are wrong. If a court has decreed that the content of Amaral's book is not libellous, why are the MCanns taking him to court on the grounds that the content of his book is libellous? That would be a pointless exercise. And why if a court has already proved that Amaral's book is not libellous, has he kept delaying the case? One would think he wouldn't be able to get to court quick enough if he knew it was in the bag - so that he could unfreeze his assets.
Well read the words form the Judges summation. Their ruling and judgement is clear as day that Amaral's thesis, in law, was a valid interpretation of the facts gathered.
I have no idea why they are taking him to court again, you need to ask them. All i know is what was said the last time the issue of his claims, via his book, were brought to a Court.
In relation to delaying it, there is no point in arguing who has delayed it, McCann supporters say he did, those not of the abduction belief say the Mccann's delayed it.
-
No Anne, there is no proof that Eddie alerted to 'death 'because Eddie could alert to body parts/blood/fluids from living people. Why do you keep ignoring that fact?
But i thought Eddie, was trained to give a specific alert to cadavert scent, which determined what he was alerting to:
Pavlov's theory is used in the
case of the E.V.R.D. system of alert. He has been 'conditioned' to give a
verbal alert when coming into contact with 'dead body scent'
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
-
I don't have the date of the document, but I would hazard a guess that the dates mentioned by Alves would be, inter alia, to tie in with the requests made to the holiday party to do a recon in May 2008.
So on or after the time all the other members of the group had refused to take part?
-
But i thought Eddie, was trained to give a specific alert to cadavert scent, which determined what he was alerting to:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Eddie was trained to alert to cadaverscent and blood - including dried blood from living people.
-
Eddie was trained to alert to cadaverscent and blood - including dried blood from living people.
Correct, but if you read that training report you can see a gives a specific alert to cadaver scent.
-
Correct, but if you read that training report you can see a gives a specific alert to cadaver scent.
Eddie only had one alert no matter what he was alerting to - he barked.
-
Eddie only had one alert no matter what he was alerting to - he barked.
Genuine question, can you advise where you saw that?
-
Genuine question, can you advise where you saw that?
It's from Martin Grimes statements - he explained that Keela alerted by Freezing and Eddie by barking. In Eddie's case he either alerted (barked) or he didn't - full stop. May I ask what you think Eddie did that was different when alerting to cadaverscent - to what he did when alerting to blood from a living person?
-
Blood is the only other body product that, when decaying (of course independently of the fact the blood producer died or not, from bleeding or not), would make Eddie bark. It's been repeated here that where Keela, who stricto senso reacts only to blood, didn't react, Eddie smelt death. But
1) the scent of death, being the same for all humans, is anonymous. This is why no court might deduce from Eddie's alert that a particular individual produced the scent.
2) there's always a possibility of error. The probability of repeated error is extremely remote.
-
Blood is the only other body product that, when decaying (of course independently of the fact the blood producer died or not, from bleeding or not), would make Eddie bark. It's been repeated here that where Keela, who stricto senso reacts only to blood, didn't react, Eddie smelt death. But
1) the scent of death, being the same for all humans, is anonymous. This is why no court might deduce from Eddie's alert that a particular individual produced the scent.
2) there's always a possibility of error. The probability of repeated error is extremely remote.
Eddie alerted to semen - which according to Grime was within his remit.
-
Correct, but if you read that training report you can see a gives a specific alert to cadaver scent.
I'm not sure what you mean. Did he give a different type of alert if he'd detected anything else within his training parameters?
I haven't found anything in that vein.
-
So on or after the time all the other members of the group had refused to take part?
Yes, perhaps so. I certainly don't blame the others for not taking part - by then it had become clear that the PJ were trying to stitch up Kate and Gerry McCann. This had become clear when the ridiculous allegation that Madeleine's remains had been in the boot of the car was put to them.
Were you aware that the group were all willing in those first days to do a recon, but the PJ put the kybosh on it? Some nonsense about having to close the airspace, I understand.
-
Correct, but if you read that training report you can see a gives a specific alert to cadaver scent.
That's not correct, Albertini. As Benice says, Eddie just barks. And that bark does not automatically mean cadaver scent.
This "Eddie barked, it MUST be cadaver scent" misunderstanding has, I believe, swayed many people in this case who don't know that it is not the case.
This lack of knowledge has cost Tony Bennett thousands and thousands of pounds.
-
Well read the words form the Judges summation. Their ruling and judgement is clear as day that Amaral's thesis, in law, was a valid interpretation of the facts gathered.
I have no idea why they are taking him to court again, you need to ask them. All i know is what was said the last time the issue of his claims, via his book, were brought to a Court.
In relation to delaying it, there is no point in arguing who has delayed it, McCann supporters say he did, those not of the abduction belief say the Mccann's delayed it.
This is an extract from the text you provided
Quote
Suggestive data ("indications") that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that can legitimately be published as a book, as long as the interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved. In our view that said interpretation does not offend the applicants' rights." End quote
The reason they could claim the book did not offend the applicant's rights was because libel had not been proved in a court of law. That is why the McCanns are taking Amaral to court - to establish that fact - and judging by the some of the downright lies in his book they won't have much trouble doing it.
-
Its that very simple guys. If the Mccanns really wanted to have a reconstruction they could have one at any time allowing for the appropriate arrangement time certainly. In fact it is my belief that they don't want a reconstruction as they are teensey weensey bit scared of the consequences given the way in which they have been so vocal towards the Porto cops.
-
Genuine question, can you advise where you saw that?
'Based upon the dogs' behaviour, is it possible to distinguish between a strong signal and a weak signal'.
The dogs' passive CSI alert provides an indication as per their training and does not vary. They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible. If they had any doubts they would not give an alert. EVRD gives an alert by means of a vocal bark.
From Martin Grime's rogatory interview.
-
This is an extract from the text you provided
Quote
Suggestive data ("indications") that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that can legitimately be published as a book, as long as the interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved. In our view that said interpretation does not offend the applicants' rights." End quote
The reason they could claim the book did not offend the applicant's rights was because libel had not been proved in a court of law. That is why the McCanns are taking Amaral to court - to establish that fact - and judging by the some of the downright lies in his book they won't have much trouble doing it.
Yes. this is correct, Benice. The other cases were just about the temporary injunction I understand, and the forthcoming court case is the one where the book may or may not be deemed libellous.
-
'Based upon the dogs' behaviour, is it possible to distinguish between a strong signal and a weak signal'.
The dogs' passive CSI alert provides an indication as per their training and does not vary. They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible. If they had any doubts they would not give an alert. EVRD gives an alert by means of a vocal bark.
From Martin Grime's rogatory interview.
But the blood alert is classed as a CSI alert, and the EVRD alert is for cadaver scent, isn't it, irrespecitve of which dog alerts to it?
I take it that Eddie barks to cadaver but freezes to blood, as Keela does to blood?
This is the problem with us non experts trying to interpret reports, none of us are qualified to give an accurate answer as to what does what.
Would you say then irrespective of the alert signal that the areas where the EVRD (cadaver) alerts but the CSI (Blood) doesn't indicates cadaver scent irrespective of the alert given?
After all if it was blood in that location then both dogs would alert.
Do you agree with that?
-
But the blood alert is classed as a CSI alert, and the EVRD alert is for cadaver scent, isn't it, irrespecitve of which dog alerts to it?
Nope!
In the Attracta Harron case Eddie alerted to blood, from which the victim's dna was extracted.
-
Its that very simple guys. If the Mccanns really wanted to have a reconstruction they could have one at any time allowing for the appropriate arrangement time certainly. In fact it is my belief that they don't want a reconstruction as they are teensey weensey bit scared of the consequences given the way in which they have been so vocal towards the Porto cops.
What do you mean by "they don't want"? Do you mean now, in 2013, or back in 2008?
Amaral could have organised it in the days following the disappearance in May 2007... but didn't.
Even if the purpose of conducting a reconstruction back in May 2007 (in the PT system) was to check out the T9 as opposed to appealing for information, it could have been explained to the press.
By 2008, with all the lurid headlines, I'm not really surprised that they were wondering what this was all about.
Aside from the initial panic interviews given by family members back in the UK, when have the T9 been "vocal" concerning the PT cops?
-
I must admit to being a bit concerned about this blog but as I waded my way through it I found it a gem of information. Some spelling errors and a bit long but brilliantly put together with a distinct bias against the McCanns version of events. 8@??)(
Some interesting new characters for us to explore separately me thinks.
-
What do you mean by "they don't want"? Do you mean now, in 2013, or back in 2008?
Amaral could have organised it in the days following the disappearance in May 2007... but didn't.
Even if the purpose of conducting a reconstruction back in May 2007 (in the PT system) was to check out the T9 as opposed to appealing for information, it could have been explained to the press.
By 2008, with all the lurid headlines, I'm not really surprised that they were wondering what this was all about.
Aside from the initial panic interviews given by family members back in the UK, when have the T9 been "vocal" concerning the PT cops?
Why should an action by the PJ as part of an investigation need or requirement, concerning the last witnesses to see Madeleine alive and well, be explained to the press?
Since when do police investigations in any country explain each action or diligence to the press in advance?
Not only should witnessess NOT have the reason why the investigation needed a reconstruction explaining to them (for obvious reasons) but in fact the PJ went out of their way and did provide an explanation by email to all of them.
And isn't it convenient that the Mccann's agreed to take part by email after it was clear the other members of their group refused making it a certainty that it would not happen, irrespective of the Mccann's attendance?
Quite a clever move on their part, as they can claim they were going to attend but others werent, so it wasn't their fault, they were happy to do it.
Unfortunately Mitchell let the cat of the bag in that article saying their lawyers would block it anyway.
-
I take it that Eddie barks to cadaver but freezes to blood, as Keela does to blood?
Where did you read that Eddie had different alerts according to what he'd detected?
-
But the blood alert is classed as a CSI alert, and the EVRD alert is for cadaver scent, isn't it, irrespecitve of which dog alerts to it?
I take it that Eddie barks to cadaver but freezes to blood, as Keela does to blood?
This is the problem with us non experts trying to interpret reports, none of us are qualified to give an accurate answer as to what does what.
Would you say then irrespective of the alert signal that the areas where the EVRD (cadaver) alerts but the CSI (Blood) doesn't indicates cadaver scent irrespective of the alert given?
After all if it was blood in that location then both dogs would alert.
Do you agree with that?
Eddie only barks - he was never trained to freeze.
I'm amazed that some people don't know that - after all this time.
-
Since when do police investigations in any country explain each action or diligence to the press in advance?
In theory not, but what was the justification for Amaral not organising it way back in May 2007?
-
What do you mean by "they don't want"? Do you mean now, in 2013, or back in 2008?
Amaral could have organised it in the days following the disappearance in May 2007... but didn't.
Even if the purpose of conducting a reconstruction back in May 2007 (in the PT system) was to check out the T9 as opposed to appealing for information, it could have been explained to the press.
By 2008, with all the lurid headlines, I'm not really surprised that they were wondering what this was all about.
Aside from the initial panic interviews given by family members back in the UK, when have the T9 been "vocal" concerning the PT cops?
I said the McCanns have been vocal criticizing the cops. Maybe you should read the book Madeleine?
As for a reconstruction the mccanns could have had one at any time but chose not to for their own reasons. Reminds me of the arguido interview when Kate only answer the last question which was something like do you agree that your failure to answer questions is compromising the search for your daughter or words to that effect and she answered YES. 8(0(*
-
I said the McCanns have been vocal criticizing the cops. Maybe you should read the book Madeleine?
As for a reconstruction the mccanns could have had one at any time but chose not to for their own reasons. Reminds me of the arguido interview when Kate only answer the last question which was something like do you agree that your failure to answer questions is compromising the search for your daughter or words to that effect and she answered YES. 8(0(*
That doesn't answer my question as to why Amaral didn't organise one in May 2007.
-
After all if it was blood in that location then both dogs would alert.
Do you agree with that?
Exactly. But both dogs alerting could also be blood (Keela) and cadaver (Eddie). And it's not excluded that the blood isn't the cadaver's one (murderer's blood).
The impossibility, in lack of recoverable remains, of determining whether Eddie alerted to cadaver or to blood turns Keela necessary. Her negative reaction in 3 places of the flat shows it wasn't blood Eddie was alerting to.
-
So what was it, that Eddie alerted to, when he ran amok and barked 5 times, at the garage wall?
-
In theory not, but what was the justification for Amaral not organising it way back in May 2007?
I have no idea, i am not him. The point is when one was asked to be done by the PJ they refused and that decision directly closed the case.
-
and that decision directly closed the case.
You've already admitted that you don't have all the facts
In what sense do you feel that fabrication contributes the search for material truth?
-
You've already admitted that you don't have all the facts
In what sense do you feel that fabrication contributes the search for material truth?
Can you answer my question and confirm as you have intimated that you have all the facts and know whodunnit.
Can you then explain why you have not contacted the Yard and told them.
-
Can you answer my question and confirm as you have intimated that you have all the facts and know whodunnit.
Can you then explain why you have not contacted the Yard and told them.
There are no facts that support a view that the Mcanns (or their friends) are hiding anything nefarious.
So Scotland Yard are attempting to establish pointers which might uncover the truth of what happened to Madeleine, with the starting-point (as they have made clear) that neither Kate and Gerry nor their friends are suspects or people of interest.
That much confirms the views of the Portuguese Prosecutors and the view expressed in the final PJ report.
-
I must admit to being a bit concerned about this blog but as I waded my way through it I found it a gem of information. Some spelling errors and a bit long but brilliantly put together with a distinct bias against the McCanns version of events. 8@??)(
Some interesting new characters for us to explore separately me thinks.
John, may i also recommend you read this free e-book:
http://freepdfhosting.com/9099bef539.pdf
There are some sections which are overlong but the timelines analysed to give a window of opportunity for abduction are interesting. From page 20 onwards.
-
There are no facts that support a view that the Mcanns (or their friends) are hiding anything nefarious.
So Scotland Yard are attempting to establish pointers which might uncover the truth of what happened to Madeleine, with the starting-point (as they have made clear) that neither Kate and Gerry nor their friends are suspects or people of interest.
That much confirms the views of the Portuguese Prosecutors and the view expressed in the final PJ report.
You have answered a question i did not ask.
In reply to your post to me about me not having all the facts i ask you once more do you have all the facts relating to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?
oh and can you tell me how the McCann's are not suspects when according to the archive report they failed to demonstrate their innocence?
-
You have answered a question i did not ask.
In reply to your post to me about me not having all the facts i ask you once more do you have all the facts relating to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?
oh and can you tell me how the McCann's are not suspects when according to the archive report they failed to demonstrate their innocence?
I have clearly grasped certain fundamental facts that have passed you by, such as that the McCanns were not involved in anything nefarious regarding Madeleine, and neither were their friends
-
I have no idea, i am not him. The point is when one was asked to be done by the PJ they refused and that decision directly closed the case.
The McCann's NEVER refused to do a reconstruction. It was cancelled, by Rebelo because some witness's had taken legal advice.
Vol 16 Page 4354 (Page 1 of 1)
Paulo Fernando Gaspar Rebelo
From : Paulo Fernando Gaspar Rebelo.
Date : 27th May 2008 10.25 a.m.
To : "Prior Stuart"
Subject : Re-enactment cancelation
(( Inserted here is an attachment labelled : Anulacao da reconstituticao.doc....))
Dear Stuart :
As agreed, here I send the Prosecutor's decision regarding the re-enactment cancelation. In a few words, it says that due the absence of the witnesses Matthew Oldfield, Rachael Mampilly, Russell O'Brien and Jane Tanner, there are no conditions to perform the diligence.
I kindly request you to urgently transmit this decision to each one of the witnesses (Matthew, Rachael, Russell, Jane, Dianne, David, Fiona and Jeremy).
Thank you, again, for your cooperation.
Best regards
Paulo Rebelo
CSIC
-
I have clearly grasped certain fundamental facts that have passed you by, such as that the McCanns were not involved in anything nefarious regarding Madeleine, and neither were their friends
So you haven't got all the facts then?
Righto, ok at least we are all clear on that. And let's spell it out for the avoidance of doubt.
Despite your pompous reply to my post you yourself Ferryman do not have all the facts of this case.
And how you have gleaned these facts that they weren't involved when the archiving report clearly states they failed to demonstrate their innocence is beyond me.
Thats before once again we go back to the book Judge's ruling on the prosecutors theory versus the theory of the investigation and understand the nature of the archiving report and the person who wrote it.
Seems to me you only know the "facts" you want to know and choose to disregard those that do not fit with your pre conceived ideas.
-
The McCann's NEVER refused to do a reconstruction. It was cancelled, by Rebelo because some witness's had taken legal advice.
Vol 16 Page 4354 (Page 1 of 1)
Paulo Fernando Gaspar Rebelo
From : Paulo Fernando Gaspar Rebelo.
Date : 27th May 2008 10.25 a.m.
To : "Prior Stuart"
Subject : Re-enactment cancelation
(( Inserted here is an attachment labelled : Anulacao da reconstituticao.doc....))
Dear Stuart :
As agreed, here I send the Prosecutor's decision regarding the re-enactment cancelation. In a few words, it says that due the absence of the witnesses Matthew Oldfield, Rachael Mampilly, Russell O'Brien and Jane Tanner, there are no conditions to perform the diligence.
I kindly request you to urgently transmit this decision to each one of the witnesses (Matthew, Rachael, Russell, Jane, Dianne, David, Fiona and Jeremy).
Thank you, again, for your cooperation.
Best regards
Paulo Rebelo
CSIC
08 May 2008 10:05
Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4310
From: Jane Tanner
Sent: 10 May 2008 10:05
To: Stuart Prior
Subject: RE:NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED:- RE: Re-enactment
Dear Stuart,
Thanks for your call last night.
I spoke with Rachel last night who is chasing Brian Spiro for a response to our legal queries. We are hoping to have that today.
Until then we cannot give a definitive answer. Hoever I believe Matt and Rachael cannot do that date, so it may be immaterial anyway!
I would just like like to reiterate what I said last night, in that it is so sad we have to consider so many peripheral issues rather than just doing everything we can do to help find Madeleine.
Thanks and regards.
Jane
10 May 2008 10:14
Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4312
From: Rachael Oldfield
Sent: 10 May 2008 10:14
To: Stuart Prior
Subject: RE:NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED:- RE: Re-enactment
Dear Stuart,
Further to our recent emails, Matthew and I have made the decision not to return to Portugal for the proposed re-enactment on 15th/16th May 2008.
We will respond to the formal notification when we receive it as well.
If you need anything further from us, please do not hesitate to give me a call.
Kind regards.
Rachael Oldfield
Email to Stuart Prior from Russell O'Brien
10 May 2008 14:56
Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4314
From: Russell O'Brien
Sent: 10 May 2008 14:56
To: Stuart Prior
Subject: RE:NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED:- RE: Re-enactment
Dear Stuart,
Apologies for the late reply.
We gather now that at least Jez Wilkins, Matt and Rach and Dave/Fi are not going/able to make the re-enactment. Given the prosecutor's requirement for all to be in attendance or none at all, and the absolute nature of the planned date, the decision appears to be academic...
I hope you are well.
Best wishes,
Russell & Jane
Email to Public Ministry from Rachael Oldfield (Letters of response to Summons)
23rd May 2008 11.39 a.m.
Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4346
From : Rachael Oldfield
Date : 23rd May 2008 11.39 a.m.
To : Serviços do Ministerio Publico de Portimão
Subject : Letters of response to Summons. Ref 3951282
Annexes : Reply (Matt) to Summons 21st May 2008 doc ; Reply (Rachael) to PJ Summons 21st May 2008.doc
((Two attachments of replies from : a) (Matt) to PJ Summons 21st...., and b) Reply (Rachael) to PJ Summons...., inserted here))
Please see attached letters in response to the summons we have received.
Please acknowledge receipt.
Many thanks.
Attachment from Matthew Oldfield
23rd May 2008
Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4345
Date 23rd May 2008
Maria Luisa Nascimento Duarte
Ministério Público de Portimão
Av. Miguel Bombarda
Palácio da Justiça
no 2 Piso
8501-960 Portimão
Reference : 3951283
Dear Sir,
I write with reference to the Notification dated 9th May 2008, which I received on Saturday 17th May 2008.
I am hereby informing you that I will not be attending the proposed Reconstitution in Portugal on 29th and 30th May 2008. I have reached this decision after considering advice from our lawyers.
Yours faithfully,
Matthew David Oldfield
Attachment from Rachael Oldfield
23rd May 2008
Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4348
Date 23rd May 2008
Maria Luisa Nascimento Duarte
Ministério Público de Portimão
Av. Miguel Bombarda
Palácio da Justiça
no 2 Piso
8501-960 Portimão
Reference : 3951283
Dear Sir,
I write with reference to the Notification dated 9th May 2008, which I received on Saturday 17th May 2008.
I am hereby informing you that I will not be attending the proposed Reconstitution in Portugal on 29th and 30th May 2008. I have reached this decision after considering advice from our lawyers.
Yours faithfully,
Rachael Marimma Jean Mampilly
There you go. The Mccann's agreed in writing to go after it was clear that there friends (who were in contact with each other) were not going to attend.
As i said previously Mitchell let the real cat out of the bag in the earlier article i cited.
-
There you go. The Mccann's agreed in writing to go after it was clear that there friends (who were in contact with each other) were not going to attend.
As i said previously Mitchell let the real cat out of the bag in the earlier article i cited.
Do you have a cite for the Mccann's agreeing in writing to go after it was clear that there friends (who were in contact with each other) were not going to attend?.
Was it their fault Rebelo cancelled.
Seems page 138 and 139 are not on the original DVD! So any info on that is hearsay!
09 01 Apensos IX Vol I Page 139
Public Ministry of Portimao
Case Section
Dear Sir
Public prosecutor
Kate Marie Healy arguida in the case referred to above, having been notified (page 3947) expresses her availability to participate in the reconstruction of the events on the second of the dates suggested, in other words on the 15 and 16th of next May. Her husband, Gerry McCann has also already expressed his availability.
Rogerio Alves
Lawyer
(Sent by email) So it should be dated!
-
Do you have a cite for the Mccann's agreeing in writing to go after it was clear that there friends (who were in contact with each other) were not going to attend?.
Was it their fault Rebelo cancelled.
Seems page 138 and 139 are not on the original DVD! So any info on that is hearsay!
09 01 Apensos IX Vol I Page 139
Public Ministry of Portimao
Case Section
Dear Sir
Public prosecutor
Kate Marie Healy arguida in the case referred to above, having been notified (page 3947) expresses her availability to participate in the reconstruction of the events on the second of the dates suggested, in other words on the 15 and 16th of next May. Her husband, Gerry McCann has also already expressed his availability.
Rogerio Alves
Lawyer
(Sent by email) So it should be dated!
I asked the question earlier and was told by one of your fellow McCann supporters on this very forum that is was probably at the same time as the rejections from the others, which let's face it makes sense as the requests will have gone out at the same time.
However if we look at the dated rejections (around 8th-10th May) and then look at Clarence Mitchell's interview on the Late Late Show in Irleand on the 9th May where does it say that Gerry & Kate agreed to go:
Pat Kenny Now, the.. the last err, thing is quite amazing. It's an astonishing developement in the sense that it's about a cancellation of a reconstruction of what happened on that night. Wh... the reconstruction wasn't going to be televised, so what was the point of it?
Clarence Mitchell: Well, that's exactly the question that Gerry, Kate and their friends were asking. Err, there were a whole host of reasons that they had very strong concerns about what this would actually achieve, what they've all said consistantly and continue to do so, will do anything to help find Madeleine.
This particular proposal, the way it was phrased and the way it was being put forward, then felt not in any shape or form help to find her. As you say, it wouldn't have been televised, there would be no new leads coming in... Err, why, what good would it have done well over a year after the event. Erm, nobody seemed to have given any consideration to Kate's mental well being. You know, was she expected to see a child playing Madeleine in front of her? All sorts of other questions.
Pat Kenny: Now, they, they were going to use erm, the McCann's and the people who were there actually that night rather than actors.
Clarence Mitchell: Well exactly, and how many reconstructions have you heard of, erm, in Ireland, Britain, or anywhere else, where the original people involved in a case, actually take part. It is virtually unheard of.
And so again, that made us, made our Lawyers wonder what, you know, what is going on here? And on top of that the Portuguese as a norm, do not do reconstructions.
Last year, just after Madeleine was taken, BBC crimewatch proposed just such a reconstruction with actors, and the Police said no, no, we don't do that here, we don't do reconstructions. And yet suddenly they turn round over a year later to say we will do one on our terms. And, erm, you know, there was some debate within the group. Now Gerry and Kate, as Arguido's, as... as suspects, err, I... would have had to go back if they were forced back, legally to go. There was no question of them saying 'no we couldn't go'. But the friends are not, erm, suspected of anything, or not involved directly in that sense, err, that degree. And as a result they have freedom of choice. And they discussed it themselves at length, and decided to let the police know that no, thank you for this offer on this occasion, but we don't feel it would be helpful.
Note the confusion between an official police reconstruction and Mitchell's attmept to turn it into a crimewatch style tv recreation.
This was an official investigative tool, not an appeal for info through Crimewatch!! Without all of the T9 involved there was no point in going ahead.
Also note Mitchell states the group spoke together about it, which reinforces the view that the Mccann's knew the others were going to cancel so their formal acceptance was irrelevant.
It beggars belief that the McCann's did not know or support their friend's decision to not take part.
Also note Mitchell's admission that as arguidos they would have to go back but their friends were free to choose.
Last year, just after Madeleine was taken, BBC crimewatch proposed just such a reconstruction with actors, and the Police said no, no, we don't do that here, we don't do reconstructions. And yet suddenly they turn round over a year later to say we will do one on our terms. And, erm, you know, there was some debate within the group. Now Gerry and Kate, as Arguido's, as... as suspects, err, I... would have had to go back if they were forced back, legally to go. There was no question of them saying 'no we couldn't go'. But the friends are not, erm, suspected of anything, or not involved directly in that sense, err, that degree. And as a result they have freedom of choice. And they discussed it themselves at length, and decided to let the police know that no, thank you for this offer on this occasion, but we don't feel it would be helpful.
-
John, may i also recommend you read this free e-book:
http://freepdfhosting.com/9099bef539.pdf
There are some sections which are overlong but the timelines analysed to give a window of opportunity for abduction are interesting. From page 20 onwards.
Who is this Michael McLean, Albertini? Is it the real name of the author, or a pseudonym?
-
Who is this Michael McLean, Albertini? Is it the real name of the author, or a pseudonym?
I have no idea who he is. I came across it and read it. I found the dissection of the timelines interesting which is why i put it up here.
-
Can you answer my question and confirm as you have intimated that you have all the facts and know whodunnit.
Can you then explain why you have not contacted the Yard and told them.
What, like the Madeleine Foundation did with their "dossiers"? @)(++(*
I bet the bins were full at Grange HQ that day...
-
Who is this Michael McLean, Albertini? Is it the real name of the author, or a pseudonym?
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Its the Shutter opener, himself!
"In the doc properties the author is Peter McLeod. Why is he not using his real name".
In other words its, Petermac, from Haverns site. Its just name changes, and having a dig at the McCann's and friends.
-
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Its the Shutter opener, himself!
"In the doc properties the author is Peter McLeod. Why is he not using his real name".
In other words its, Petermac, from Haverns site. Its just name changes, and having a dig at the McCann's and friends.
Interesting. The use of a nom-de-plume is rather telling.
-
I have no idea, i am not him. The point is when one was asked to be done by the PJ they refused and that decision directly closed the case.
Could you clarify? The idea that a reconstruction that didn't take place led directly to closing the case isn't at all clear to me.
-
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Its the Shutter opener, himself!
"In the doc properties the author is Peter McLeod. Why is he not using his real name".
In other words its, Petermac, from Haverns site. Its just name changes, and having a dig at the McCann's and friends.
Ok so counter the claims on the timeline.
Debunk the writing not the writer.
-
Could you clarify? The idea that a reconstruction that didn't take place led directly to closing the case isn't at all clear to me.
Yes sure from the final report:
In this sense, the legal procedures were followed, according to the norms and conventions that are in force, and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present inclusively appealing to solidarity with the McCann couple, as it is certain that since the beginning they adhered to that process diligence.
Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
-
Interesting. The use of a nom-de-plume is rather telling.
We already know who played with the shutters and window.
None other than km herself.
-
Yes, perhaps so. I certainly don't blame the others for not taking part - by then it had become clear that the PJ were trying to stitch up Kate and Gerry McCann. This had become clear when the ridiculous allegation that Madeleine's remains had been in the boot of the car was put to them.
Were you aware that the group were all willing in those first days to do a recon, but the PJ put the kybosh on it? Some nonsense about having to close the airspace, I understand.
I don't understand how you can be fitted up in re-enacting what you said in a statement.
The T7 were allowed, subject to the Prosecutor's acceptance, legal representation.
Plus they were offered the chance for the Foreign office to be present and the Leicestershire Police had already been invited:
15 April 2008
Processos Volume XVI, pgs. 4190 to 4192
If it is their wish, the witnesses can be assisted by the Foreign Office and, in the proceedings, also by a legal representative, subject to the consent of the Public Prosecutor's Office. Within the scope of the cooperation that has been taking place, the Leicestershire Police has already been invited to be present in the proceedings;
How do you think the PJ could fit them up with the FO, their lawyers and Leicestershire Police in attendance?
-
We already know who played with the shutters and window.
None other than km herself.
I think the fingerprints business has already been discussed, a while ago?
-
I don't understand how you can be fitted up in re-enacting what you said in a statement.
The T7 were allowed, subject to the Prosecutor's acceptance, legal representation.
Plus they were offered the chance for the Foreign office to be present and the Leicestershire Police had already been invited:
How do you think the PJ could fit them up with the FO, their lawyers and Leicestershire Police in attendance?
Well they tried it with the lies about the forensics, so anything is possible. The nub of the matter is that the PJ messed up by not staging the recon in the early days when all were present in PDL and willing.
-
Gosh so much importance attached to the sudden need for a reconstruction many months after the event - but only after the Tapas 7 refused to take part it seems to me.
And yet in the days following the 3rd when everyone would have taken part - there was so little importance attached to the need for a reconstruction - that they didn't bother to have one.
Very odd.
-
Ok so counter the claims on the timeline.
Debunk the writing not the writer.
Why should anyone bother wasting their time on something that has been written by someone who has an agenda against Kate and Gerry McCann? It therefore has no credibility, unlike something penned from a neutral stance.
-
Gosh so much importance attached to the sudden need for a reconstruction many months after the event - but only after the Tapas 7 refused to take part it seems to me.
And yet in the days following the 3rd when everyone would have taken part - there was so little importance attached to the need for a reconstruction - that they didn't bother to have one.
Very odd.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
Well they tried it with the lies about the forensics, so anything is possible. The nub of the matter is that the PJ messed up by not staging the recon in the early days when all were present in PDL and willing.
Well you can think that if you like but i'm afraid that viewpoint does not pass muster when judged against the words of Rebelo and the protection he specifically offered them.
Irrespective of whether you believe 6 years later they messed up in 2007 the fact remains now and forever that the McCann's and their friends killed the investigation by not performing the reconstruction that Rebelo needed and asked for.
I cannot get my head around it. If they felt certain that their statements were true, what fear could they have by acting them out, with so much UK representation there with them?
Had they acted it out and satisfied the PJ they would have FORCED the PJ then to look at the abductor scenario.
As the archiving report states the main damaged parties were the McCann's themselves for they were unable to prove their innocence once and for all.
The question is if you are innocent why would you want to kill the investigation into your (friend's) missing child? What does that tell you about the group and their motives?
-
Well you can think that if you like but i'm afraid that viewpoint does not pass muster when judged against the words of Rebelo and the protection he specifically offered them.
Irrespective of whether you believe 6 years later they messed up in 2007 the fact remains now and forever that the McCann's and their friends killed the investigation by not performing the reconstruction that Rebelo needed and asked for.
I cannot get my head around it. If they felt certain that their statements were true, what fear could they have by acting them out, with so much UK representation there with them?
Had they acted it out and satisfied the PJ they would have FORCED the PJ then to look at the abductor scenario.
As the archiving report states the main damaged parties were the McCann's themselves for they were unable to prove their innocence once and for all.
The question is if you are innocent why would you want to kill the investigation into your (friend's) missing child? What does that tell you about the group and their motives?
I think it was Fiona Payne (I may be mistaken) who summed it up well in her E-mail to Prior: "They either believe our version of events or they don't".
Had I been one of the holiday party, and seen the horrendous press headlines that my two friends had been subjected to, many of which I believe were fuelled by leaks from the PJ, then I too would have refused to set foot in PT. If it were my two friends that the PJ had deliberately lied to with worthless forensics, then I too would have refused to set foot in PT.
And perhaps Fiona and Co. had done a bit of research into other PJ fit-ups, cock-ups and violence.
-
Gosh so much importance attached to the sudden need for a reconstruction many months after the event - but only after the Tapas 7 refused to take part it seems to me.
And yet in the days following the 3rd when everyone would have taken part - there was so little importance attached to the need for a reconstruction - that they didn't bother to have one.
Very odd.
Er no. Look at the timelines. Rebelo stated as follows:
15 April 2008
Processos Volume XVI, pgs. 4190 to 4192
14 – The PJ considers this re-enactment to be highly important, and hopes the witnesses show their total cooperation, as they have been doing so far, towards finding out the truth.
10 May 2008 10:14
Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4312
From: Rachael Oldfield
Sent: 10 May 2008 10:14
To: Stuart Prior
Subject: RE:NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED:- RE: Re-enactment
Dear Stuart,
Further to our recent emails, Matthew and I have made the decision not to return to Portugal for the proposed re-enactment on 15th/16th May 2008.
We will respond to the formal notification when we receive it as well.
If you need anything further from us, please do not hesitate to give me a call.
Kind regards.
Rachael Oldfield
So it was made clear to the group BEFORE they decided to kill it of its importance.
In fact Rachel Oldfield mentioned it in an email of 23rd April BEFORE she eventually said no:
23 April 2008
Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4225
From : Rachael Oldfield (<email address quoted>)
To : "Prior Stuart"
Cc : "Matthew Oldfield" (<email address quoted>)
Sent : Wednesday, April 23rd, 2008.
Subject : Re : Re-enactment questions
Dear Stuart,
Thank you for your e-mail and the attached response from the PJ.
We remain unconvinced that this reconstruction is necessary. Our most
significant question hasn't been answered, ie, how is it going to help find Madeleine/materially benefit the search for her?
Point 14 of the PJ's response says that they consider this re-enactment "highly important". Why is that? What are they really trying to get out of a reconstruction?
Either they believe our version of the events of May 3rd 2007, or they don't. If they do, why the need for a reconstruction? If they don't believe us, do they want a reconstruction so we can convince them otherwise?
If the purpose of a reconstruction is to convince the Prosecutor to lift Kate and Gerry's arguido status then we would consider taking part in it. If it is to properly focus the investigation on the person seen carrying a child away from the apartment, again, we would consider taking part because that would help to find Madeleine.
We just need to be properly convinced of the reasons for doing a re-enactment.
We know you are the middle man in all this but we are sorry for more questions !
Please give either of us a call if you would like to talk through the above. Also if you feel this e-mail should be forwarded to the PJ please could you let us know.
Many thanks,
Kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
Rachael and Matthew Oldfield.
-
I think it was Fiona Payne (I may be mistaken) who summed it up well in her E-mail to Prior: "They either believe our version of events or they don't".
Had I been one of the holiday party, and seen the horrendous press headlines that my two friends had been subjected to, many of which I believe were fuelled by leaks from the PJ, then I too would have refused to set foot in PT. If it were my two friends that the PJ had deliberately lied to with worthless forensics, then I too would have refused to set foot in PT.
And perhaps Fiona and Co. had done a bit of research into other PJ fit-ups, cock-ups and violence.
Well i gave you the other day the issue of the patio shutter being down as per Rachel's 15th May statement. No one had mentioned that before and it sent this forum into a bit of a tail spin, with some posts claiming someone must be wrong.
Don't you think a reconstruction could have resolved those kinds of issues once and for all?
Don't you also think it is not the place of a witness to state they do not know what benefit a recon will bring to the investigation?
Since when has a witness been able to dictate investigative leads and strategies?
It is simply outrageous that they should dictacte what the investigation should and should not do. If you read the full email exchanges you will see the sheer breathtaking arrogance of the way they tried to steer the course of the reconstruction.
In my mind, given the protection offered by the PJ, they never had any inclination to go back and perform what the PJ asked them to do.
Given the protections offered (lawyers, FO and Leicestershire Police in attendance) the "fit up" allegation is false, and the real question is why did they kill the reconstruction when they knew the PJ needed it to move the investigation forward?
Why did they not want to act out what they said? What were they afraid of being exposed?
-
Well i gave you the other day the issue of the patio shutter being down as per Rachel's 15th May statement. No one had mentioned that before and it sent this forum into a bit of a tail spin, with some posts claiming someone must be wrong.
Don't you think a reconstruction could have resolved those kinds of issues once and for all?
Don't you also think it is not the place of a witness to state they do not know what benefit a recon will bring to the investigation?
Since when has a witness been able to dictate investigative leads and strategies?
It is simply outrageous that they should dictacte what the investigation should and should not do. If you read the full email exchanges you will see the sheer breathtaking arrogance of the way they tried to steer the course of the reconstruction.
In my mind, given the protection offered by the PJ, they never had any inclination to go back and perform what the PJ asked them to do.
Given the protections offered (lawyers, FO and Leicestershire Police in attendance) the "fit up" allegation is false, and the real question is why did they kill the reconstruction when they knew the PJ needed it to move the investigation forward?
Why did they not want to act out what they said? What were they afraid of being exposed?
I don't believe they were trying to dictate anything - just to gain some reassurances, as would anyone being asked to return to a foreign country where an attempt had been made to incriminate their friends on non-existent forensics. Was it Paiva that was waving the piece of paper in Gerry McCann's face with the "concrete evidence" on it?
Anyroad, it is all a moot point now. I would imagine that the Yard will have done a virtual reconstruction a very long time ago.
-
Yes sure from the final report:
It is interesting that when the McCanns ask several of their friends to take part in a reconstruction filmed for the Channel 4 documentary 'Madeleine Was Here' they were only too willing to take part.
Perhaps if the McCanns had asked their friends to also attend the police reconstruction, as they were allegedly so willing to go themselves, their daughters's whereabouts may have been discovered by now.
-
I don't believe they were trying to dictate anything - just to gain some reassurances, as would anyone being asked to return to a foreign country where an attempt had been made to incriminate their friends on non-existent forensics. Was it Paiva that was waving the piece of paper in Gerry McCann's face with the "concrete evidence" on it?
Anyroad, it is all a moot point now. I would imagine that the Yard will have done a virtual reconstruction a very long time ago.
Reading these pages from the DVD's, puts this whole scenario into perspective.
Processos Volume XVI, pgs. 4129 to 4414
4216, 4218, 4224, 4225, 4229, 4231, 4232, 4235, 4237, 4241, 4243, 4245, 4248, 4252, 4372, 4374, 4377.
A lot of the emails are from Paiva, not Rebelo!
-
Reading these pages from the DVD's, puts this whole scenario into perspective.
Processos Volume XVI, pgs. 4129 to 4414
4216, 4218, 4224, 4225, 4229, 4231, 4232, 4235, 4237, 4241, 4243, 4245, 4248, 4252, 4372, 4374, 4377.
A lot of the emails are from Paiva, not Rebelo!
Cheers DCI, I will have a look later.
-
Ok so counter the claims on the timeline.
Debunk the writing not the writer.
When I'm desperate enough to read or reply to Blacksmiths rubbish, I'll pack up, altogether.
-
It is interesting that when the McCanns ask several of their friends to take part in a reconstruction filmed for the Channel 4 documentary 'Madeleine Was Here' they were only too willing to take part.
Perhaps if the McCanns had asked their friends to also attend the police reconstruction, as they were allegedly so willing to go themselves, their daughters's whereabouts may have been discovered by now.
Several? I believe only Jane Tanner took part - although I may be mistaken and am willing to be corrected.
Once again, this is a moot point as I am confident that the Yard will have done a virtual reconstruction yonks ago.
-
I am confident that the Yard will have done a virtual reconstruction yonks ago.
Indeed, Rachel, which is why the Yard have been able to say that they are investigating the abduction and not the parents or friends because they are not considered suspects in this case.
The sceptics use of the refusal to return for a reconstruction as a reason for the investigation being incomplete is a complete furphy. There is no guarantee that such a re-enactment would have advanced the investigation one iota, particularly given the complexity of manoeuvering so many people in more than one location, and there would have been no confidence that the PJ would have handled such a reconstruction any better than they handled other aspects of this crime - they couldn't even do fingerprint ing adequately, or take proper crime scene photographs, for goodness sake! Why would they have managed a complicated reconstruction an y more professionally?
If the Portuguese LE felt it was so important for a reconstruction in order to sort out anomalies in the timelines of the various statements, then they could have asked the UK authorities to use their resources to do a virtual reconstruction (the HOLMES system), in which all the variables can be put in, producing an accurate and dependable outcome.
-
Why should anyone bother wasting their time on something that has been written by someone who has an agenda against Kate and Gerry McCann? It therefore has no credibility, unlike something penned from a neutral stance.
Well, what a narrow perspective you have! I try to read as much as i can from all sides to get a handle on as much information as possible on the case.
I believe the theories and analyses are all referenced in this document, so i fail to see how you can simply dismiss it out of hand without at least reading it first.
-
When I'm desperate enough to read or reply to Blacksmiths rubbish, I'll pack up, altogether.
Well you need to get your hate figures straight.
If it was Petermac (Peter Macleod) he is not Blacksmith. Blacksmith has i believe several writers the main one being Anthony Sharples.
-
I am confident that the Yard will have done a virtual reconstruction yonks ago.
Indeed, Rachel, which is why the Yard have been able to say that they are investigating the abduction and not the parents or friends because they are not considered suspects in this case.
The sceptics use of the refusal to return for a reconstruction as a reason for the investigation being incomplete is a complete furphy. There is no guarantee that such a re-enactment would have advanced the investigation one iota, particularly given the complexity of manoeuvering so many people in more than one location, and there would have been no confidence that the PJ would have handled such a reconstruction any better than they handled other aspects of this crime - they couldn't even do fingerprint ing adequately, or take proper crime scene photographs, for goodness sake! Why would they have managed a complicated reconstruction an y more professionally?
If the Portuguese LE felt it was so important for a reconstruction in order to sort out anomalies in the timelines of the various statements, then they could have asked the UK authorities to use their resources to do a virtual reconstruction (the HOLMES system), in which all the variables can be put in, producing an accurate and dependable outcome.
Quite so Chinagirl. In most recons. accurate and precise times down to the last minute would not be a requirement, but with the window of opportunity for an abduction being only a matter of minutes then precision with regard to times is vital.
If a physical recon. was attempted then how for instance would it work in the case of Jez Wilkins? He says he spoke to Gerry for about 3 to 5 mins. So which time would they use for a recon? Would they do one with them standing in the street for 3 mins and then do another one for 4 mins and then another one for 5 mins. Imagine the time this would take.
The same problem exists with anyone who could only give estimated times - which is everyone. The only accurate time as far as I know is Gerry's 9.05 time.
The Holmes system would sort all that out in a fraction of the time and the expense which attempting a complicated physical reconstruction would incur.
Andy Redwood has intimated that this has already been done, and I presume the results will have been shared with their Portuguese counterparts.
-
What if Holmes concluded the best window of opportunity was between 9:45 and 10 pm (since Ms Tanner and Mr OB crossed the car park between 9:30 and 9:45), matching the best carrier (6 independent witnesses and moreover a girl) ?
-
Quite so Chinagirl. In most recons. accurate and precise times down to the last minute would not be a requirement, but with the window of opportunity for an abduction being only a matter of minutes then precision with regard to times is vital.
If a physical recon. was attempted then how for instance would it work in the case of Jez Wilkins? He says he spoke to Gerry for about 3 to 5 mins. So which time would they use for a recon? Would they do one with them standing in the street for 3 mins and then do another one for 4 mins and then another one for 5 mins. Imagine the time this would take.
The same problem exists with anyone who could only give estimated times - which is everyone. The only accurate time as far as I know is Gerry's 9.05 time.
The Holmes system would sort all that out in a fraction of the time and the expense which attempting a complicated physical reconstruction would incur.
Andy Redwood has intimated that this has already been done, and I presume the results will have been shared with their Portuguese counterparts.
Sho how would a computer reconstruction account and explain Rachel's statement that on her way to the Tapas Gerry's patio shutter was down, when it is not mentioned in any of the other statements?
Is it not better to have them all there and then say to Rachel, did you see the shutters down as you stated on 15th May 2007? You did, ok Gerry, please explain this.
Getting the people involved to reconstruct is far more beneficial.
-
Well, what a narrow perspective you have! I try to read as much as i can from all sides to get a handle on as much information as possible on the case.
I believe the theories and analyses are all referenced in this document, so i fail to see how you can simply dismiss it out of hand without at least reading it first.
I have read some of it a while ago. I believe that McLeod has used some links to newspaper reports as references in his writings? We know how reliable those are.
I just hope that it has not been sent to the Grange Team - they have had enough to deal with already with the cranks and nutters sending things in to them.
-
Sho how would a computer reconstruction account and explain Rachel's statement that on her way to the Tapas Gerry's patio shutter was down, when it is not mentioned in any of the other statements?
Is it not better to have them all there and then say to Rachel, did you see the shutters down as you stated on 15th May 2007? You did, ok Gerry, please explain this.
Getting the people involved to reconstruct is far more beneficial.
Why on Earth would they need a reconstruction to ask those questions? They could do that anytime.
-
Well you need to get your hate figures straight.
If it was Petermac (Peter Macleod) he is not Blacksmith. Blacksmith has i believe several writers the main one being Anthony Sharples.
Why is there such an undercurrent of anger in every post you make in response to Me, and to those posters who do believe the abduction theory?
I don't get it.
-
Why is there such an undercurrent of anger in every post you make in response to Me, and to those posters who do believe the abduction theory?
I don't get it.
The only anger visible, is exhibited by those who can't comprehend why people won't swallow the abduction thesis.
You should really stay on ....., where cobblers is the rule of thumb.
-
Not worth it!
-
Why is there such an undercurrent of anger in every post you make in response to Me, and to those posters who do believe the abduction theory?
I don't get it.
I note you also display a tendency to copy the posts of others in reply to their posts.
Why do you do that?
Seems more than a little childish and "flouncy" to me.
Ties in with the undercurrent of anger i mentioned the other day.
How strange.
-
Why is there such an undercurrent of anger in every post you make in response to Me, and to those posters who do believe the abduction theory?
I don't get it.
Let's actually discuss it. Go on i will bite.
Let me tell you the difference between you and I.
I am perfectly able to accept abduction when (or if) clear and unequivocal evidence is put forward by the Yard to support that.
My position on the disappearance is that having read the files and the gathered information i do not believe there was a sufficient window of opportunity for abduction, i do not believe the Tanner sighting, i do not believe the shutter was opened by an abductor and i do not believe a key was borrowed, copied or stolen and i find the group's decision not perform a recon suspicious coupled with severe doubts i harbour over the veracity of their statements.
Now if there is evidence that SY brings to the table that i haven't seen then i am perfectly happy to evaluate that evidence and if it points to abduction i will be able to accept it on the basis that i had arrived at a conclusion based only on the information i had to hand at the time.
You on the other hand, will be until your dying day a true believer in the McCann's, even, i suspect, if one or both of them admitted their involvement in the disappearance.
Let me explain the difference. I am well rounded enough to look at the facts, make an assumption, look at more facts and then to change my assumptions if more information comes to light.
I am not so arrogant or insecure to think i know everything or that i cannot be wrong about anything.
This is, unfortunately, and from what i can see in our exchanges over recent days, not a trait you appear to share.
You are therefore, and i repeat i can only base this on our exchanges, a zealot, fixated in your belief of one thing and one thing only, and not prepared to concede one inch on any aspect of any fact that would suggest the McCann's and their friends did anything wrong at all ever.
And that's a huge shame as it detracts from the quality of debate we can have on this forum with you flouncing in the corner like a moping teenager, slinging arrows from afar every now and again.
Whilst i do not agree with the theories put forward by the likes of Rachael or Lace (just as examples) we have been exchanging posts and points in a civil manner without this constant undercurrent of seething rage, anger or obsessiveness that appears to seep through your every post.
This is an internet forum, i do not know you but i would like to think that we can have different viewpoints and still all get along without the snideyness, the flouncing or the attempts at intellectual superiority by repeating or inverting people's posts back to them.
It's tiresome, non productive, does your argument no good and makes you come across as a bit of an arse.
-
I have read some of it a while ago. I believe that McLeod has used some links to newspaper reports as references in his writings? We know how reliable those are.
I just hope that it has not been sent to the Grange Team - they have had enough to deal with already with the cranks and nutters sending things in to them.
What, like this from Chinagirl ?
http://stopthemyths.prophpbb.com/topic1073.html
-
What, like this from Chinagirl ?
http://stopthemyths.prophpbb.com/topic1073.html
8)--))
-
What, like this from Chinagirl ?
http://stopthemyths.prophpbb.com/topic1073.html
Great find, hadn't seen this before. An excellent piece.
-
Great find, hadn't seen this before. An excellent piece.
So you question the reliability of the piece when the gentleman McLeod uses links to newspaper reports as references in his writings but not when Chinagirl does, is that correct ? @)(++(*
-
So you question the reliability of the piece when the gentleman McLeod uses links to newspaper reports as references in his writings but not when Chinagirl does, is that correct ? @)(++(*
I wouldn't use the words "gentleman" or "reliability" to describe McLeod, faith! Chinagirl has used her recognised posting handle for her piece, yet McLeod has used a false name. I wonder why? @)(++(*
PS) Any more news on where you got the translation from in the David Payne Visit thread?
-
I wouldn't use the words "gentleman" or "reliability" to describe McLeod, faith! Chinagirl has used her recognised posting handle for her piece, yet McLeod has used a false name. I wonder why? @)(++(*
PS) Any more news on where you got the translation from in the David Payne Visit thread?
What rollocks. Using a false name in both cases. 8-)(--)
-
But Stephen has not doubted the veracity of someone who posts under a false name.
That's the difference.
Thanks Albertini.
-
I wouldn't use the words "gentleman" or "reliability" to describe McLeod, faith! Chinagirl has used her recognised posting handle for her piece, yet McLeod has used a false name. I wonder why? @)(++(*
PS) Any more news on where you got the translation from in the David Payne Visit thread?
So Chinagirl is her real name, is it ? If not I really don't see how you are in a position to question this gentleman for not using his real name either. As to the content of the articles, both used newspaper articles as reference, in fact from a quick perusal Chinagirl actually uses more than McLeod.
-
So Chinagirl is her real name, is it ? If not I really don't see how you are in a position to question this gentleman for not using his real name either. As to the content of the articles, both used newspaper articles as reference, in fact from a quick perusal Chinagirl actually uses more than McLeod.
So, faithlilly is your real name then?
-
So, faithlilly is your real name then?
Best not to fudge and bi tch but read back, its best
-
So, faithlilly is your real name then?
It's not me that as the problem with people using non de plumes but you, remember ? @)(++(*
-
It's not me that as the problem with people using non de plumes but you, remember ? @)(++(*
So why are you not using your real name on here, then?
-
Of course "Chinagirl" is not my real life name. However, it is the nom de plume I have used consistently in every forum I have posted in about this case for the past six years. No one needs to speculate about whether I'm the same person who said a certain thing on such-and-such a forum and is now saying something else on another. I don't think there are many people posting about this case, pro or anti, who have maintained the same identity throughout.
And as a matter of interest, I started out being considerably sceptical about the McCanns and the abduction, but became increasingly disillusioned by what I saw as inept handling of the investigation by Amaral and his team, so that by the time the arguido status was lifted and the files released, commonsense, innate sympathy for the parents, and a firm belief in the well-established legal principle of the presumption of innocence caused me to become what is known as a "pro." This is the stance I have maintained ever since, and for which I feel fully justified, given the latest pronouncements by Scotland Yard and the final report of the Portuguese AG.
-
Of course "Chinagirl" is not my real life name. However, it is the nom de plume I have used consistently in every forum I have posted in about this case for the past six years. No one needs to speculate about whether I'm the same person who said a certain thing on such-and-such a forum and is now saying something else on another. I don't think there are many people posting about this case, pro or anti, who have maintained the same identity throughout.
And as a matter of interest, I started out being considerably sceptical about the McCanns and the abduction, but became increasingly disillusioned by what I saw as inept handling of the investigation by Amaral and his team, so that by the time the arguido status was lifted and the files released, commonsense, innate sympathy for the parents, and a firm belief in the well-established legal principle of the presumption of innocence caused me to become what is known as a "pro." This is the stance I have maintained ever since, and for which I feel fully justified, given the latest pronouncements by Scotland Yard and the final report of the Portuguese AG.
Given the sheer hatred and vitriol displayed on forums over this case, from both sides of the argument, i have no problem in anyone using a false name or a forum handle to conceal their identity. After all some of the "tactics" used to discredit posters and commentators borders on criminal at times.
I have no problem ignoring the writer's name (or several names) and concentrating on the writer's words to see if what they say is credible and makes sense to me.
Thank you for the background to your own position. I had heard of you before but did not know the back story.
Clearly we have differing views but i respect that fact, and i am certainly not interested in hunting you down and finding out your real name, address, family and occupation like some of the more extreme elements do.
It strikes me as one of the bizarre facets of discussion of the case online, the way normal (and presumably) decent people can becoming raving and raging monsters, uncovering names, addresses, occupations when discussing this case.
It's not merely about disagreeing with what someone says. It is about trying to destroy them online.
Utterley despicable and completely nonesensical to me.
Just a couple of points to pick up on though.
First of all the presumption of innocence. That is to be applied when a suspect arrives in a Court and not in an investigative phase (which is where we are now), which is why we had the archiving report's famous "failure to prove their innocence" paragraph.
After all police forces around the world require suspects to provide alibis and evidence to remove them from suspicion. So in an investigative phase there is no presumption of innocence until that suspect can be definitively shown to be innocent through alibis, forenscis or verifiable facts for example.
In relation to the presumption of innocent until proven guilty even in a Court, there are degrees of innocence as confirmed by the recent Barry George compensation case and the Judge's ruling.
Finally on the AG report, i know i keep repeating this but it needs to keep being said until it is acknowledged. The AG had no legal powers to proclaim the Mccann's not guilty. Only a Judge in a court can do that. The AG was a public prosecutor, who was effectively saying in his opinion, he did not have evidence to proceed with a criminal case against the McCann's.
The UK equivalent would be of the CPS to say they aren't taking a case to court as they have insufficient evidence.
That is not the same, as seems to have been swallowed by supporters of the Mccann's that a Judge has found them not guilty in a court.
It is not the same and clearly needs understanding as such.
Let us be clear that the only time that the PJ's evdience was put before a court was in the Amaral/Mccann Book Supreme Court trial where those jusdges (real Judges, in a real Court) decided that the AG's findings were simply an interepretation of the evidence, and that Amaral's thesis was an equally vaid "police-led" interpretation of those same facts:
"What is certain is that since the start of the investigation, there were incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements, the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them, the movements of people immediately after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?), etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the aforementioned sniffer dogs."
"Where Amaral differs from the Prosecutors who wrote the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he makes of those facts."
We need, to stress the following: the facts that led to the applicants' constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not sufficiently valued by the Public Ministry's Prosecutors to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen from a different angle, may lead to a different conclusion from that of the prosecutors.
Suggestive data ("indications") that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that can legitimately be published as a book, as long as the interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved. In our view that said interpretation does not offend the applicants' rights."
Finally in relation to the Yard's work, i too am happy for them to go about their business. I do not think we are getting the full picture from Cider Andy, but we shouldn't be either given the investigation is still live.
As i stated yesterday, his "38 persons of interest line" seems hugely irrresponsible if he truly believes Madeleine is still alive.
That comment could spook any abductor into "getting rid of the evidence", as they would have no idea if they are one of the "persons of interest". Best to dump the evidence just in case.......
I would rather wait until the END of the investigation to see what Redwood has to say, as we know investigations should ebb and flow where the evidence takes it.
If at the end he has an abductor then i will be more than happy to see that, as we all, irrespective of which side of the fence we are on want closure for Madeleine's sake.
However he needs to make sure that the evidence he uncovers is cast iron because short of a confession, on the evidence so far seen, the case will be a defence lawyer's wet dream and convicting an abductor on the evidence of what is there at the moment will be nigh on impossible.
-
What is there in the following which would lead anyone to conclude there was a failure to prove their innocence:-
---------------------------------------------
The following is extracted from Tugendhat J's judgment in the matter of McCann v Bennett:
the Report of the District Attorney dated 21 July 2008, a copy of which is exhibited to the third affidavit of Ms Martorell. That includes the following (in translation):
QUOTE
1. "With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records.
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that
2. they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance,
3. their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses,
4. the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports… None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later;
5. there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police,
6 . the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and
7. the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless
….
Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order:
… b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
END QUOTE
-
What is there in the following which would lead anyone to conclude there was a failure to prove their innocence:-
---------------------------------------------
The following is extracted from Tugendhat J's judgment in the matter of McCann v Bennett:
the Report of the District Attorney dated 21 July 2008, a copy of which is exhibited to the third affidavit of Ms Martorell. That includes the following (in translation):
QUOTE
1. "With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records.
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that
2. they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance,
3. their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses,
4. the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports… None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later;
5. there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police,
6 . the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and
7. the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless
….
Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order:
… b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
END QUOTE
Because you are selectively quoting from the same Archiving report.
What about this from the same report:
Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
-
Because you are selectively quoting from the same Archiving report.
What about this from the same report:
Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
That refers only to the reconstruction and he does not say that because the reconstruction didn't take place then it is proof that the McCanns were guilty of anything - only that some facts remained unclarified.
Furthermore - it's obvious that the innocence of the McCanns was not considered by the AG to be affected by the ''said facts that remained unclarified' - otherwise he would not have been in a position to state any of the following - which he did after ''considering all of the foregoing'' - which I presume included the fact that no recon took place.
Quote
1. "With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records.
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that
2. they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance,
3. their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses,
4. the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports… None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later;
5. there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police,
6 . the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and
7. the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless
….
Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order:
… b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
-
That refers only to the reconstruction and he does not say that because the reconstruction didn't take place then it is proof that the McCanns were guilty of anything - only that some facts remained unclarified.
Furthermore - it's obvious that the innocence of the McCanns was not considered by the AG to be affected by the ''said facts that remained unclarified' - otherwise he would not have been in a position to state any of the following - which he did after ''considering all of the foregoing'' - which I presume included the fact that no recon took place.
Quote
1. "With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records.
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that
2. they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance,
3. their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses,
4. the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports… None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later;
5. there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police,
6 . the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and
7. the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless
….
Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order:
… b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
Deary me, no matter how much you try to spin it the text is clear in the archiving report:
As a result of the McCann's not taking part in the reconstruction the investigation was disturbed and the Mccann's damaged their ability prove their innocence.
This was a claim that Menezez REPEATED in court for the book trial.
Again, for the umpteenth time, that was a prosecution lawyer's assessment of the facts of the case as he saw it AND NOT A JUDGE IN A COURT OF LAW!!
When this evidence and the archiving report went before an actual Judge in a real Court, they stated, as i have quoted several times, that Amaral's thesis was of equal merit and a police led interpretation of the facts.
What the archiving report says has no merit of guilt or innocence in any legal sense because Menezez is a public prosecutor, a government lawyer AND NOT A JUDGE.
How many times do i have to repeat this until you accept it?
-
I guess it's difficult to accept this when you project a manichaean grid on things.
Unless solid evidence is found to determine the nature of the crime and charge somebody, we'll never know what happened to Madeleine McCann and interested people will have to debate with themselves and with others whether ultimately it was Mr McCann or a lookalike who carried Madeleine's body in the street of PDL.
See the case of the writer Michael Peterson, who was granted a new trial after 8 years in jail (though no new evidence was brought but because of some irregularity in the process) and was liberated, did he or did he not push his wife in the staircase ? The French film maker of the documentary series on the case and the second trial, said recently he wasn't sure.
-
Deary me, no matter how much you try to spin it the text is clear in the archiving report:
As a result of the McCann's not taking part in the reconstruction the investigation was disturbed and the Mccann's damaged their ability prove their innocence.
This was a claim that Menezez REPEATED in court for the book trial.
Again, for the umpteenth time, that was a prosecution lawyer's assessment of the facts of the case as he saw it AND NOT A JUDGE IN A COURT OF LAW!!
When this evidence and the archiving report went before an actual Judge in a real Court, they stated, as i have quoted several times, that Amaral's thesis was of equal merit and a police led interpretation of the facts.
What the archiving report says has no merit of guilt or innocence in any legal sense because Menezez is a public prosecutor, a government lawyer AND NOT A JUDGE.
How many times do i have to repeat this until you accept it?
Well for a start I don't accept anything you quote from the Book Trial - the McCanns were not on trial there and if IIRC neither did they have any legal representation. The only issue the court had to consider was whether Amaral's book could go on sale. It is quite plain that as no libel trial had taken place and because no libel had been proved they could not say that the content of Amarals book was libellous. - that is why they were able to overturn the ban. Now as a result of that the McCanns are sueing Amaral to provide the proof that his book is libellous.
As far as I am concerned the AG looked at all the evidence, including the reconstruction, and although he felt that particular non event meant certain facts remained unclarified, they were not of enough significance to make any difference to his final decision. - which was that there was NO evidence ....that is NO evidence ....not insufficient evidence ....that the McCanns had committed any crime.
As a result of his final decision, he ordered the removal of the Arguido status and so the McCanns are now exactly the same as any other person, who has never been charged with any crime. i.e. INNOCENT.
-
The question of libel was not considered at this ex-parte hearing. It was decided that Amaral's right to free speech should override the McCanns' right to a good name, with all question of libel irrelevant to the question of the injunction.
Curiously, it was found that Amaral stuck to what was written in the files. He didn't.
According to Amaral, the Smiths saw Gerry whisking Madeleine past their noses.
According to the final PJ report, at the time of the Smith sighting, Gerry was in the Tapas restaurant.
No one other than Amaral says half the DNA from the boot of the car was Gerry's.
It isn't written in the files that Kate sacked one of the liaison officers. It is in Amaral's book.
It isn't written in the files that Gordon Brown was told before Amaral that Amaral would be booted off the case. It is in Amaral's book.
It isn't written in the files that Amaral had UK police officers trailed after they arrived in Portugal.
It is in Amaral's book.
And so on. And so forth ...
-
Well for a start I don't accept anything you quote from the Book Trial - the McCanns were not on trial there and if IIRC neither did they have any legal representation. The only issue the court had to consider was whether Amaral's book could go on sale. It is quite plain that as no libel trial had taken place and because no libel had been proved they could not say that the content of Amarals book was libellous. - that is why they were able to overturn the ban. Now as a result of that the McCanns are sueing Amaral to provide the proof that his book is libellous.
As far as I am concerned the AG looked at all the evidence, including the reconstruction, and although he felt that particular non event meant certain facts remained unclarified, they were not of enough significance to make any difference to his final decision. - which was that there was NO evidence ....that is NO evidence ....not insufficient evidence ....that the McCanns had committed any crime.
As a result of his final decision, he ordered the removal of the Arguido status and so the McCanns are now exactly the same as any other person, who has never been charged with any crime. i.e. INNOCENT.
You cannot be judged innocent of a crime, if you haven't been charged with one.
Arguido status, yet again can be invoked for up to 20 years after the initial in-statement.
-
You cannot be judged innocent of a crime, if you haven't been charged with one.
By that defintion (I use the word loosely) anyone who has not been charged with something can be considered guilty.
Where do people get this guff from?
-
You cannot be judged innocent of a crime, if you haven't been charged with one.
By that defintion (I use the word loosely) anyone who has not been charged with something can be considered guilty.
Where do people get this guff from?
Not guff, simply a fact.
If you haven't been charged with a crime 'ferryman' how can you be innocent or guilty ?
-
Well for a start I don't accept anything you quote from the Book Trial - the McCanns were not on trial there and if IIRC neither did they have any legal representation. The only issue the court had to consider was whether Amaral's book could go on sale. It is quite plain that as no libel trial had taken place and because no libel had been proved they could not say that the content of Amarals book was libellous. - that is why they were able to overturn the ban. Now as a result of that the McCanns are sueing Amaral to provide the proof that his book is libellous.
As far as I am concerned the AG looked at all the evidence, including the reconstruction, and although he felt that particular non event meant certain facts remained unclarified, they were not of enough significance to make any difference to his final decision. - which was that there was NO evidence ....that is NO evidence ....not insufficient evidence ....that the McCanns had committed any crime.
As a result of his final decision, he ordered the removal of the Arguido status and so the McCanns are now exactly the same as any other person, who has never been charged with any crime. i.e. INNOCENT.
I'm sorry to say, Benice, you've got it all wrong.
1) Had you been at the trial in which the McCanns were present as the accusers, you would have seen their legal representant Mrs Duarte arguing against Mr Amaral, his editor and the TV producer.
At the time of this trial Mr Amaral's book had been banned from sale for about 6 months following an injunction made by the McCanns' legal representant, Mrs Duarte. A trial was required in order to confirm or infirm the ban decision. It confirmed it. So it wasn't at all a trial to determine whether Mr Amaral's book could go on sale, but to determine whether the ban for libel reasons was justified or not (you don't think that in a democracy you can ban a book just because you hate the author or because he doesn't believe you, do you ?).
2) You'll convince nobody that, whereas the Portuguese spent so much time trying to obtain the participation of the group in a reconstruction, the facts to clarify "weren't of enough significance". Please read the AG's report.
3) The AG removed the arguido status as a result not of a decision, but of an obligation to end the investigation because of Mr Murat, who couldn't be arguido longer. The arguido status cannot be lifted before the end of the investigation. Thanks to Mr Murat, the arguido "ordeal" of the McCanns finished in July 2008. BUT they could have claimed to pursue. They didn't, they certainly had a superior reason for not requiring an inquest that would be contradictory.
-
Well for a start I don't accept anything you quote from the Book Trial - the McCanns were not on trial there and if IIRC neither did they have any legal representation. The only issue the court had to consider was whether Amaral's book could go on sale. It is quite plain that as no libel trial had taken place and because no libel had been proved they could not say that the content of Amarals book was libellous. - that is why they were able to overturn the ban. Now as a result of that the McCanns are sueing Amaral to provide the proof that his book is libellous.
As far as I am concerned the AG looked at all the evidence, including the reconstruction, and although he felt that particular non event meant certain facts remained unclarified, they were not of enough significance to make any difference to his final decision. - which was that there was NO evidence ....that is NO evidence ....not insufficient evidence ....that the McCanns had committed any crime.
As a result of his final decision, he ordered the removal of the Arguido status and so the McCanns are now exactly the same as any other person, who has never been charged with any crime. i.e. INNOCENT.
Well for a start I don't accept anything you quote from the Book Trial - the McCanns were not on trial there and if IIRC neither did they have any legal representation.
I don't normally quote specific extracts from posts, but I'll make an exception on this one.
Good grief! The McCann's brought the action against Amaral so of course they had representation.
If you aren't prepared to accept documented rulings by a Judge in a Court of Law, readily available on the web, then you should not really be commentating on the case.
This one sentence alone shows that you see only what you want to see and disregard irrefutable evidence that doesn't match your preconceived ideas.
For the record i did not not say it THE JUDGES DID!
Clearly you do not understand the following:
The nature and role of a public prosecutor
The difference, legally, between what is essentially a "District Attorney" and a Judge
The nature of what the archiving summary states and it's legal weight
The difference between proving your innocence in an investigation and being "innocent until proven guilty" in a court case.
The nature of the legal position in Portugal of the archiving summary in comparison to the PJ's thesis as ruled by the Judges
If you did understand these things then you would, as those McCann supporters who do, not touch the archiving report nor the Judges summary with a barge pole, as it does your case no good to keep quoting it and embarrassing yourself.
For the final time to you let's review once again.
The archiving report stated the investigation was "disturbed" because for reasons unknown the Tapas crew wouldn't come back to perform the reconstruction.
The archiving report IN THE AUTHORS OPINION (I.E. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) said that no evidence had been found that the Mccann's had committed a crime.
However as a result of the "disturbed" (i.e. incomplete investigation) the Mccann's had not proven their innocence.
The book Judges ruled that the PJ's interpretation was an equally valid interpretation of the same facts.
Until you grasp these fairly basic concepts we will get nowhere and you will continue to look silly.
-
The question of libel was not considered at this ex-parte hearing. It was decided that Amaral's right to free speech should override the McCanns' right to a good name, with all question of libel irrelevant to the question of the injunction.
Curiously, it was found that Amaral stuck to what was written in the files. He didn't.
According to Amaral, the Smiths saw Gerry whisking Madeleine past their noses.
According to the final PJ report, at the time of the Smith sighting, Gerry was in the Tapas restaurant.
No one other than Amaral says half the DNA from the boot of the car was Gerry's.
It isn't written in the files that Kate sacked one of the liaison officers. It is in Amaral's book.
It isn't written in the files that Gordon Brown was told before Amaral that Amaral would be booted off the case. It is in Amaral's book.
It isn't written in the files that Amaral had UK police officers trailed after they arrived in Portugal.
It is in Amaral's book.
And so on. And so forth ...
So why didn't Duarte blow Amaral out of the water in this case then? Either she's incompetent or it wasn't there.
After all the Judges said:
we still cannot understand how it is possible for said rights to be offended by the contents of a book that describes facts from the investigation, although it parts from the interpretation that the Public Ministry's Magistrates made of those facts, yet offering based, solidly built and logical interpretations.
-
So why didn't Duarte blow Amaral out of the water in this case then? Either she's incompetent or it wasn't there.
After all the Judges said:
Because it was an ex parte judgment. No one representing the McCanns was there to contest the ruling or take part in the proceedings.
First the McCanns knew that the injuunction had been overruled was when it was announced after the hearing.
-
You cannot be judged innocent of a crime, if you haven't been charged with one.
By that defintion (I use the word loosely) anyone who has not been charged with something can be considered guilty.
Where do people get this guff from?
Oh dear. Another poor supporter who doesn't understand the difference between an investigation ruling out suspects and innocent until proven guilt in a court!
Two completely different things.
No doubt you do not understand either the degree of innocence courts apply so recently exemplified by the Barry George compensation case.
-
Because it was an ex parte judgment. No one representing the McCanns was there to contest the ruling or take part in the proceedings.
First the McCanns knew that the injuunction had been overruled was when it was announced after the hearing.
Which reviewed the evidence from the initial trial. So why didn't Durate bring it up then? Or in the subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court which turned down their appeal.
-
The question of libel was not considered at this ex-parte hearing. It was decided that Amaral's right to free speech should override the McCanns' right to a good name, with all question of libel irrelevant to the question of the injunction.
To be fair the ruling said far more than that.
It specifcally stated Amaral's thesis was a valid police led interpretation of the facts.
"Where Amaral differs from the Prosecutors who wrote the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he [Amaral] makes of those facts."
We need, to stress the following: the facts that led to the applicants' constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not sufficiently valued by the Public Ministry's Prosecutors to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen from a different angle, may lead to a different conclusion from that of the prosecutors.
Suggestive data ("indications") that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that can legitimately be published as a book, as long as the interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved. In our view that said interpretation does not offend the applicants' rights."
-
Oh dear. Another poor supporter who doesn't understand the difference between an investigation ruling out suspects and innocent until proven guilt in a court!
Two completely different things.
No doubt you do not understand either the degree of innocence courts apply so recently exemplified by the Barry George compensation case.
The edit in the post above was to replace the word sap with the word supporter
He is spouting ignorance which is probably not a bannable offence.
But name-calling (by the, I presume, round-robin, PM) is.
So, are the moderators going to show teeth and ban this name-caller?
-
You cannot be judged innocent of a crime, if you haven't been charged with one.
By that defintion (I use the word loosely) anyone who has not been charged with something can be considered guilty.
Where do people get this guff from?
If they were official suspects its slightly different to just *anyone*, isn't it?
The PP is afaiaw the equivalent of the CPS here. They do not decide on guilt or innocence, they only look at the evidence and decide whether they have a good enough case to take it to court. Stephen is technically correct. The PP decided not to charge them. Not surprised, when the *type of crime was unknown*.
-
If they were official suspects its slightly different to just *anyone*, isn't it?
The PP is afaiaw the equivalent of the CPS here. They do not decide on guilt or innocence, they only look at the evidence and decide whether they have a good enough case to take it to court. Stephen is technically correct. The PP decided not to charge them. Not surprised, when the *type of crime was unknown*.
The McCanns were offered deal by which, if Kate pleaded guilty to finding and concealing a body, Gerry would get off scott free; or they would both be charged with murder.
The McCanns stood their ground and the PJ bluff was called.
-
The McCanns were offered deal by which, if Kate pleaded guilty to finding and concealing a body, Gerry would get off scott free; or they would both be charged with murder.
The McCanns stood their ground and the PJ bluff was called.
Whats that got to do with my post?
In any case Kate was not offered any deal. Unless you can provide independent documented proof that she was, it can only be regarded as hearsay.
-
The edit in the post above was to replace the word sap with the word supporter
He is spouting ignorance which is probably not a bannable offence.
But name-calling (by the, I presume, round-robin, PM) is.
So, are the moderators going to show teeth and ban this name-caller?
Lol, it was because i hadn't seen the PM and once i had i changed it.
Can you expand upon my ignorance, or is that why you want me banned? Because you cannot so it's easier for you if i am banned - although the PM says:
Any poster who refers to or calls another member a derogatory name will receive a final warning that a repeat will result in a ban
You appear, for some strange reason, to have missed that bit out.
I wonder why?
Given ignroance of rules is no defence if the admin see fit to give me a final warning i'm happy to accept that.
Now on to this ignorance you speak of, care to elaborate?
-
Both McCanns were accused of murder and Kate was accused of finding and concealing a body.
The prosecutors could find no evidence of any crime by either of the couple.
Therefore the McCanns' innocence was established.
Simple as that.
-
The McCanns were offered deal by which, if Kate pleaded guilty to finding and concealing a body, Gerry would get off scott free; or they would both be charged with murder.
The McCanns stood their ground and the PJ bluff was called.
Do you have evidence of this so called deal other than Philomena McCann's say so?
-
Both McCanns were accused of murder and Kate was accused of finding and concealing a body.
The prosecutors could find no evidence of any crime by either of the couple.
Therefore the McCanns' innocence was established.
Simple as that.
Really? When were the McCann's formally "charged"?
They were made "Arguidos" but not formally charged.
Can you advise in which Court and when they were found "innocent"?
Do you understand that only a Court can determine guilt or innocence of a crime, it is a Juidical process and the case had not gone before a Judge?
Let me quote a piece:
But what did "failing to demonstrate their innocence" mean? How can anyone demonstrate their innocence? There is no provision for doing so by the judicial process in European democracies, since a criminal trial is exclusively concerned with determining guilt, not innocence. And, in any case, no judicial process had taken place.
So the prosecutors were not talking judicially. Then in what sense were they talking? They were talking in the context of investigation, the process which has to be completed before a trial, any criminal trial, can take place. And their investigation, even though it made clear that the couple were being released from their arguido status because of the absence of evidence against them, had been unable to exclude Kate & Gerry McCann as possible perpetrators of a crime against the child.
Of course you could argue – especially if you were determined to make excuses for the parents – that this is all nonsense, an absurdity and that nobody can "demonstrate innocence" in this way. But that is wrong: in the investigative phase, which is precisely what the prosecutors are summarising, they certainly can.
And the law recognises it. People who have irreproachable alibis demonstrate their innocence; people incapable of committing a specific crime by dint of their inability to have executed it – by physical disability or other lack of means – do that; people whose DNA does not match that of the perpetrator at the crime scene do so. And the reader can no doubt think of other examples: while Kate McCann was made a suspect, for instance, her mother was not, since she was physically too far away from the crime scene to have had any direct involvement. Such "demonstrable" innocence can form the basis of a wrongful arrest claim – something which, by the way, the McCanns and their spokesman said they would pursue but – what do you expect? – never did.
But then was this just a subjective, general opinion of the prosecutors that could be ignored or rebutted? No it was not. The prosecutors cited the facts on which their statement was founded, drawing attention to events on May 3 2007 which gave cause for concern and needed further investigation. One of these was the troubling problem of how it was possible for Jeremy Wilkins and Gerry McCann to have missed the mystery figure seen by Jane Tanner. Then there was the children's bedroom window which Kate McCann claimed was so wide open at 10PM that a door slammed in the draught – yet none of the people who had passed the apartment, the last of them only twenty minutes or so before, had spotted an open window. Furthermore, although the group had provided "timelines" of their movements in writing, the investigators did not accept that they were truthful and accurate. Indeed, even in July 2008 the prosecutors still had no confirmed account of what the holiday group's movements had been for the period between 6.45 and 10PM. And, lastly, the prosecutors had not accepted Jane Tanner's sighting of what they called "the supposed abductor" as an accurate and complete account.
It was these critical problem areas – "among others", as the prosecutors wrote – that prompted police and prosecution to appeal to the Tapas 7 to join the parents in a clarification and reconstruction exercise. As we know the Seven refused and so the prosecutors had to write the archiving report in 2008 without the assistance of the Nine and with the problems completely unresolved. As a result the McCanns "protestations of innocence" as the prosecutors called them, remained just that, protestations not demonstrations. Prosecutors cannot demonstrate innocence or guilt: only the evidence can do that. Since there was no evidence of a crime the prosecutors said so; since there was no evidence to demonstrate their innocence the prosecutors said that too.
Leicester police, the main UK arm of the investigation, said the same thing, although, unlike the Portuguese, they did not provide the evidence on which their statement was based. The assistant chief constable of that force used almost the same words as the Portuguese prosecutors: "while one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance."
That remains their position today, although some of the parents' less intelligent supporters have danced on the head of a pin to claim that the Leicester police statement was made in ignorance of the Portuguese findings and was therefore somehow rendered out of date by them. Nonsense. The assistant chief constable knew the findings: his officers were in Portugal discussing them at the same time as he made his statement.
-
Plenty:
http://amaralfiction.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/plea-bargains-and-lies-but-not-lies-you.html
-
I will read the rest, but this took my eye:
...since a criminal trial is exclusively concerned with determining guilt, not innocence
By that reckoning, then, no one tried is ever found innocent ...
Is the rest of the article worth reading?
-
The short answer (to my own question) is no!
-
This post is most observant and deserves being bumped. My emboldening and sizing
The question of libel was not considered at this ex-parte hearing. It was decided that Amaral's right to free speech should override the McCanns' right to a good name, with all question of libel irrelevant to the question of the injunction.
Curiously, it was found that Amaral stuck to what was written in the files. He didn't.
According to Amaral, the Smiths saw Gerry whisking Madeleine past their noses.
According to the final PJ report, at the time of the Smith sighting, Gerry was in the Tapas restaurant.
No one other than Amaral says half the DNA from the boot of the car was Gerry's.
It isn't written in the files that Kate sacked one of the liaison officers. It is in Amaral's book.
It isn't written in the files that Gordon Brown was told before Amaral that Amaral would be booted off the case. It is in Amaral's book.
It isn't written in the files that Amaral had UK police officers trailed after they arrived in Portugal.
It is in Amaral's book.
And so on. And so forth ...
-
This is astonishing to see old rumours come back after 6 years !
Everything in this story started with the rumour of the broken shutters (actually it wouldn't have started at all without that spectacular rumour). Though John Hill tried vainly to deny it, the more he did, the more it was propagated (media suspecting him to defend MW resorts' security). Hallucinating ! Even after Mr Mitchell had to confess no evidence proved the shutters had been broken (almost 6 months later), the rumour here and there pops up again.
-
I will read the rest, but this took my eye:
...since a criminal trial is exclusively concerned with determining guilt, not innocence
By that reckoning, then, no one tried is ever found innocent ...
Is the rest of the article worth reading?
Nope you haven't understood it.
What that means is that suspects are brought to trial by prosecutors who are concerned with determining the guilt of that suspect.
You don't have a criminal court case with the remit frpm the outset to be "shall we put them trial just to see if they are innocent".
They are put on trial to determine if they are guilty or not.
-
Nope you haven't understood it.
What that means is that suspects are brought to trial by prosecutors who are concerned with determining the guilt of that suspect.
You don't have a criminal court case with the remit frpm the outset to be "shall we put them trial just to see if they are innocent".
They are put on trial to determine if they are guilty or not.
Try again
The clue is in the last two words of your post, or not
-
I'm sorry to say, Benice, you've got it all wrong.
1) Had you been at the trial in which the McCanns were present as the accusers, you would have seen their legal representant Mrs Duarte arguing against Mr Amaral, his editor and the TV producer.
I was referring to the ex parte Judgement which I understand the McCanns had no knowledge of until after it was done and dusted.
Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
-
I was referring to the ex parte Judgement which I understand the McCanns had no knowledge of until after it was done and dusted.
Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
Which part ? The Appeal ? I already answered on this, Benice, no legal representant is present in a civil court appeal. The judges judge the judgement made by the minor court.
-
I will read the rest, but this took my eye:
...since a criminal trial is exclusively concerned with determining guilt, not innocence
By that reckoning, then, no one tried is ever found innocent ...
Is the rest of the article worth reading?
A trial finds the defendant guilty or not guilty. No one is ever found to be innocent when tried
-
Scroll down to the part underlined
CPS Statement – R v Rayment and others
22/03/2005
Her Honour Judge Anne Goddard QC has discharged the jury in the trial of R v Rayment and others at the Old Bailey today.
The trial, which started in June 2003, dealt with an alleged fraud over contracts for the construction of London's Jubilee Line Extension Project (JLEP). It was always anticipated to be a lengthy trial because of the size and complexity of the case.
The prosecution closed its case in August 2004. However, in the seven months since the prosecution closed its case the jury has heard defence evidence on only 10 days of the available 140, amounting to approx 22.5 hours. The majority of the delays during this period have been caused through illness of the defendants, principally Mr Skinner.
Since the case started there have been substantial delays because of illnesses suffered by a number of jurors, one of the defendants and defence counsel, and because of other unexpected and unavoidable commitments of jurors.
On 14 March the judge adjourned the case to allow defence and prosecution counsel to consider their position in relation to an issue about one of the jurors. The Crown also asked for additional time to consider the wider issues of the trial. Counsel for the Crown, Patrick Upward QC, told the court today that after very careful consideration of all aspects of the case the Crown was now able to explain its position to the court.
He explained that significant time had been lost during the trial for various reasons and most recently there had been long delays in the course of the defence case because of illness. To date, over a period of five months, the jury had heard 22 hours of evidence from Mr Skinner, the first defendant to give evidence - the equivalent of five working court days. He explained that time had been lost since January because of counsel's illness, Mr Skinner's recurring illness and illness amongst members of the jury, and that the jury had heard no evidence since 1 st February. Taking into consideration the evidence still to be heard, jurors' necessary commitments and the time needed for summing-up, it was unlikely that the jury would be able to retire to consider its verdict before mid-September.
Mr Upward said:
"For reasons beyond the Crown's control, we have now reached a point at which minimal progress has been made since the beginning of the year; impetus has now ceased. We are now at the stage when this can only lead to unfairness. Furthermore, we are faced with the prospect of continuing delay and disruption.
"The Crown has a duty to the public to ensure that every trial is fair and is seen to be fair. We have now concluded that the continuation of this trial would undermine that fundamental principle.
"We are satisfied that this prosecution was properly brought, based on reliable evidence of substantial criminality. We believe that the counts in the indictment reflect the risk occasioned to the economic interests of London Underground Limited and as such properly mirror the extent of that criminality. We also believe that there is a high public interest in ensuring that criminality of such magnitude is brought fully to justice. For these reasons, we have pursued the prosecution for many months with determination. However, the accumulation of delays to date, the further delays that it is known that we face and the disruption of the evidence, most particularly that of the accused, leads us to conclude that the time has been reached when no jury, no matter how diligent and no matter how clearly directed, can be expected to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused in a way that would be regarded as fair by the objective bystander."
The Director of Casework at the CPS, Chris Newell said:
"I should like first to pay tribute to the jury for their hard work, care and commitment. We all owe them a huge debt of gratitude.
"The allegations in this case were very serious and it was clearly in the public interest to bring them before a court and to have them tried by a jury. Ultimately, for the reasons set out by counsel in court, this has not been possible and it is a matter of grave concern that such an important prosecution should end in this way.
"The Attorney General has asked Stephen Wooler, the Chief Inspector of Her Majesty's CPS Inspectorate, to conduct an inquiry. I welcome this. I and my staff - and, of course, counsel instructed - will do all that we can to assist Mr Wooler in his work. It is essential that the criminal justice system as a whole learns from this experience and that the exceptional circumstances that brought it about are never repeated."
The Crown has now taken a decision not to seek a retrial on this indictment and has informed the court that it will not be offering any evidence against the defendants on outstanding indictments relating to this matter. The judge has entered not guilty verdicts against all defendants. Paul Maw pleaded guilty in June 2003.
-
not guilty legal definition
noun
1.A determination by a jury that the evidence is insufficient to convict the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.
that's the legal definition. does that prove innocence? No
-
Plenty:
http://amaralfiction.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/plea-bargains-and-lies-but-not-lies-you.html
Nope theres no evidence there that a plea bargain was offered (which i understand to be illegal anyway in Portugal).
And given Aunty Phil's public utterings on 4th May about "Some people may ask why they left the children alone in the apartment but it was locked and they had a full view of the front door and they were checking every half hour" then i'm inclined not to believe her.
-
Try again
The clue is in the last two words of your post, or not
Nope, you still don't understand, keep reading and if you're still struggling to keep up give me a shout and i'll try and explain it for you in simpler terms. 8((()*/
-
I was referring to the ex parte Judgement which I understand the McCanns had no knowledge of until after it was done and dusted.
Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
Which was "done" on the basis of the judges reviewing the evidence brought previously. They looked at all that Durate had said, so, if she was as good as is being portrayed why didn't she get these game changing "anomalies" in there then?
-
I don't normally quote specific extracts from posts, but I'll make an exception on this one.
Good grief! The McCann's brought the action against Amaral so of course they had representation.
If you aren't prepared to accept documented rulings by a Judge in a Court of Law, readily available on the web, then you should not really be commentating on the case.
This one sentence alone shows that you see only what you want to see and disregard irrefutable evidence that doesn't match your preconceived ideas.
For the record i did not not say it THE JUDGES DID!
Clearly you do not understand the following:
The nature and role of a public prosecutor
The difference, legally, between what is essentially a "District Attorney" and a Judge
The nature of what the archiving summary states and it's legal weight
The difference between proving your innocence in an investigation and being "innocent until proven guilty" in a court case.
The nature of the legal position in Portugal of the archiving summary in comparison to the PJ's thesis as ruled by the Judges
If you did understand these things then you would, as those McCann supporters who do, not touch the archiving report nor the Judges summary with a barge pole, as it does your case no good to keep quoting it and embarrassing yourself.
For the final time to you let's review once again.
The archiving report stated the investigation was "disturbed" because for reasons unknown the Tapas crew wouldn't come back to perform the reconstruction.
The archiving report IN THE AUTHORS OPINION (I.E. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) said that no evidence had been found that the Mccann's had committed a crime.
However as a result of the "disturbed" (i.e. incomplete investigation) the Mccann's had not proven their innocence.
The book Judges ruled that the PJ's interpretation was an equally valid interpretation of the same facts.
Until you grasp these fairly basic concepts we will get nowhere and you will continue to look silly.
I disagree.
If the AG had decided that because the McCanns did not attend a reconstruction - that prevented him from categorically clearing them from any involvement in her disappearance then he would have said so - and given that as the reason - and IMO the final report would have read something like this:-
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is NOT apparent - from the fact that they did not attend the requested reconstruction
Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order:
Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is INSUFFICIENT evidence to continue with the process.
But obviously that was not his FINAL conclusion because he did categorically state that:-
''The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action IS apparent...
Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order:
b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is NO evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure''
There is no ambiguity there - the report clearly states that there is no evidence that they committed any crime.
I'm sure the AG was aware that the McCanns did not refuse to attend the reconstructon but were prevented from doing so because of the PJ's stipulation that unless everyone attended it would not be taking place. Therefore he recognised they were not at fault.
IMO
-
not guilty legal definition
noun
1.A determination by a jury that the evidence is insufficient to convict the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.
that's the legal definition. does that prove innocence? No
Key part from the link above:
However, the accumulation of delays to date, the further delays that it is known that we face and the disruption of the evidence, most particularly that of the accused, leads us to conclude that the time has been reached when no jury, no matter how diligent and no matter how clearly directed, can be expected to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused in a way that would be regarded as fair by the objective bystander."
Unless you think a dictionary knows better than the CPS?
-
What advice does the mod team have on how to respond to blatant goading by posters who long ago lost the argument?
This board doesn't have an ignore button, does it?
-
I disagree.
If the AG had decided that because the McCanns did not attend a reconstruction - that prevented him from categorically clearing them from any involvement in her disappearance then he would have said so - and given that as the reason - and IMO the final report would have read something like this:-
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is NOT apparent - from the fact that they did not attend the requested reconstruction
Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order:
Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is INSUFFICIENT evidence to continue with the process.
But obviously that was not his FINAL conclusion because he did categorically state that:-
''The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action IS apparent...
Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order:
b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is NO evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure''
There is no ambiguity there - the report clearly states that there is no evidence that they committed any crime.
I'm sure the AG was aware that the McCanns did not refuse to attend the reconstructon but were prevented from doing so because of the PJ's stipulation that unless everyone attended it would not be taking place. Therefore he recognised they were not at fault.
IMO
Morning Benice.
I do not agree as the archiving report has a lengthy section regarding the reconstruction which clearly states:
In this sense, the legal procedures were followed, according to the norms and conventions that are in force, and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present inclusively appealing to solidarity with the McCann couple, as it is certain that since the beginning they adhered to that process diligence.
Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
-
What advice does the mod team have on how to respond to blatant goading by posters who long ago lost the argument?
This board doesn't have an ignore button, does it?
Which argument has been lost? You have not acknowledged the fact that in an investigative phase there is no presumption of "innocent until proven guilty". That only applies to a defendent in court.
That's why the first question suspects get asked by the police is "where were you on the night of......"
Suspects have to "demonstrate their innocence" (to use the archiving report's words) when crimes are being investigated (note not when crimes are borught to a court) to prove their innocence of involvement.
When a trial goes to court it is brought on the basis that the prosecution believe that the person is guilty, and the trial is about the prosecution proving that guilt and it's the defence's job to prove the defendent is not guilty.
However that does not stop a defendent from entering the court "innocent until proven guilty".
You are mixing all these simple concepts across an investigative phase and then a court phase into one (incorrect) assumption that everyone all the time is "innocent until proven guilty" and that is, during a police investigation, false.
Then of course we have degrees of innocence. Indeed in the Barry George compensation trial the judge said:
The High Court had ruled that Mr George did not qualify for compensation because jurors could still reasonably have convicted him despite new evidence that led to his acquittal.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23241520
So clearly there are degrees of innocence, aren't there? He was acquitted but the appeal judges stated the juror's could have found him guilty!
How does that square with your insistence of "innocent until proven guilty".
-
You have not acknowledged the fact that in an investigative phase there is no presumption of "innocent until proven guilty". That only applies to a defendent in court.
If investigators discontinue an inquiry against someone originally considered a suspect, they have determined that the person is innocent.
It really is that simple
-
This is some convoluted, unintelligent and many-times-before tried attempt to fabricate an "argument" that the McCanns cannot, truly, be declared innocent unless there is a trial, which is complete rubbish ...
-
You have not acknowledged the fact that in an investigative phase there is no presumption of "innocent until proven guilty". That only applies to a defendent in court.
If investigators discontinue an inquiry against someone originally considered a suspect, they have determined that the person is innocent.
It really is that simple
No they haven't, and no it is not.
If investigators discontinue an investigation against a suspect it is because either they have another suspect who they believe is actually guilty OR they have insufficient evidence for the likelihood of conviction against the people they suspect.
See here for details:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9745679/CPS-criticised-for-dropping-one-in-ten-cases-after-suspect-is-charged.html
Although many cases were dropped because of a lack of evidence, 20,000 were not pursued because prosecutors decided it was "not in the public interest" to go to court, despite there being sufficient evidence in the vast majority of cases.
Hence, going back to the Maddie case you have in the archiving report the fact that Menezez says there was no evidence (in his opinion) that the McCann's had committed a crime yet in the same report the famous phrase that the McCann's had " failed to demonstrate their innocence".
What i have been telling you is the reason those two apparently contradictory (to you) statements reside in the same document.
-
This is some convoluted, unintelligent and many-times-before tried attempt to fabricate an "argument" that the McCanns cannot, truly, be declared innocent unless there is a trial, which is complete rubbish ...
No it is not! You are either intellectually unable to grasp the meaning of the evidence before you or are stubbornly refusing to accept it because you support the McCann's.
It has been explained by myself and others in detail, quoting evidence and examples yet you still have the audacity to claim that we/i are using "convoluted, unintelligent and many-times-before tried attempt to fabricate an "argument" that the McCanns cannot, truly, be declared innocent unless there is a trial, which is complete rubbish"
You have not been able to rebut one iota of what has been put before you.
-
(Sic) after a suspect is charged.
The McCanns were never charged.
Now, perhaps, you'd like to produce something relevant to whatever argument you think you are trying to make?
-
Morning Benice.
I do not agree as the archiving report has a lengthy section regarding the reconstruction which clearly states:
''In this sense, the legal procedures were followed, according to the norms and conventions that are in force, and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present inclusively appealing to solidarity with the McCann couple, as it is certain that since the beginning they adhered to that process diligence.
Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.''
'Morning Albertini,
We are in danger of going round in circles here. What you quote is part of the 'foregoing' all of which the AG studied and took into account before making his final decision. If he had thought the above was an impediment to the final decision he did make, he would have said so and arrived at a different conclusion.
It seems clear to me that because the recon didn't happen, the AG felt that damage had been done TO the McCanns not BY them. However it's also clear that he did not believe the non-recon (and the facts that were left unclarified because of it), constituted a strong enough reason to affect his final conclusion. Probably because he had no way of predicting what the outcome of a reconstruction would have been.
(must go out now)
-
(Sic) after a suspect is charged.
The McCanns were never charged.
Now, perhaps, you'd like to produce something relevant to whatever argument you think you are trying to make?
I have laid my argument out in several posts and you haven't been able to rebutt or counter any of the points i have made with evidence or examples.
We are not going to get anywhere until you do.
-
I have laid my argument out in several posts and you haven't been able to rebutt or counter any of the points i have made with evidence or examples.
We are not going to get anywhere until you do.
This is a crude and tried before attempt to make a (non-existent) "case" that the McCanns cannot be declared truly innocent unless there is a trial.
Complete rubbish.
There never was a trial in the first place because the McCanns' innocence was established by the original enquiry.
-
The AG judged
1) the MC weren't a danger for society
2) they had been cruelly punished whatever their guilt in what happened to Madeleine.
So no reason to be not politically correct and have the tiring tabloid army time-consumingly attacking Portugal.
After all the suspicion, in the investigation, was their disposing of a body not their killing their daughter. Of course the police lost time and energy running after a walking abductor without a face, but no drama.
Of course the Fund etc. are excluded, having nothing to do with the AG.
-
After all the suspicion, in the investigation, was their disposing of a body not their killing their daughter.
Not true. The Madeleine investigation was a murder enquiry ...
-
After all the suspicion, in the investigation, was their disposing of a body not their killing their daughter.
Not true. The Madeleine investigation was a murder enquiry ...
An inquiry on a disappearance.
-
An inquiry on a disappearance.
Must dash.
But nope.
Harrison is quite specific. He was tasked to consider that Madeleine had been murdered
-
This is a crude and tried before attempt to make a (non-existent) "case" that the McCanns cannot be declared truly innocent unless there is a trial.
Complete rubbish.
There never was a trial in the first place because the McCanns' innocence was established by the original enquiry.
Well clearly you do not understand the difference between a "District Attorney" and a Court & a Judge.
Because if you did you would know that a District Attorney / Public Prosecutor has no powers in a legal sense to determine guilt or innocence and that only a court and Judge can LEGALLY do that.
You also do not understand that when tested in A COURT the AG's report was described as "an interpretation" of the facts and that Amaral's (and the PJ's thesis) was an equally valid police led interpretation of those self same facts.
You also do not understand why the AG report stated the McCann's had failed to demonstrate their innocence.
How can you be judged (by a prosecutor - with no legal powers to detemrine guilt ior innoncence - not a Judge remember) to be "innocent" when you have, according to that self same report, NOT demonstrated your innocence?
If you are still struggling to understand i will be happy to oblige by answering that in my next post.
-
You have to understand, Ferryman, that the AG was kind of compassionate with the McCanns. He knew very well that, unless an abductor and Madeleine were found, the black cloud of doubt will flap over them for ever. Your and other's repeating again and again they're innocent will never change the public opinion. The only way would be a positive proof they weren't involved. Why don't you try to find it ?
-
You have to understand, Ferryman, that the AG was kind of compassionate with the McCanns. He knew very well that, unless an abductor and Madeleine were found, the black cloud of doubt will flap over them for ever. Your and other's repeating again and again they're innocent will never change the public opinion. The only way would be a positive proof they weren't involved. Why don't you try to find it ?
Anna, the AG report is quite clear. In their opinion at that time there was no evidence to suggest the parents had committed a crime AT THE TIME OF SHELVING THE CASE, ON WHAT WAS A "DISTURBED" (I.E. INCOMPLETE) INVESTIGATION.
However the same report also said that the McCann's had failed to demonstrate their innocence.
So what that means as i have tried to explain countless times is that whilst in the AG's opinion there was no evidence based on the collected evidence so far (but remember the investigation was incomplete), as suspects they had still not demonstrated their innocence (those are the AG's words not mine).
We know that an AG is not a court and cannot make a legal judgement of guilt or innocence. Only a court can do that and not a public prosecutor.
And we also know that this is a correct interpretion because the book banning judges confirmed it and added that from a Court's perspective the PJ's thesis was an equally valid interpretion of the same facts as far as a court was concerned.
Our friend Ferryman can try and cloud or ignore these cold hard facts as much as he likes but it is irrefutable.
-
Well clearly you do not understand the difference between a "District Attorney" and a Court & a Judge.
Because if you did you would know that a District Attorney / Public Prosecutor has no powers in a legal sense to determine guilt or innocence and that only a court and Judge can LEGALLY do that.
You also do not understand that when tested in A COURT the AG's report was described as "an interpretation" of the facts and that Amaral's (and the PJ's thesis) was an equally valid police led interpretation of those self same facts.
You also do not understand why the AG report stated the McCann's had failed to demonstrate their innocence.
How can you be judged (by a prosecutor - with no legal powers to detemrine guilt ior innoncence - not a Judge remember) to be "innocent" when you have, according to that self same report, NOT demonstrated your innocence?
If you are still struggling to understand i will be happy to oblige by answering that in my next post.
District Attorney
District Attorneys operate in the US.
Over and out ...
-
District Attorney
District Attorneys operate in the US.
Over and out ...
Notice the quotation marks around the phrase.
I'm trying to simplify the terms for you so you understand what a public prosecutor is (clue, not a Judge) because it doesn't appear to be going in at your end.
-
Notice the quotation marks around the phrase.
I'm trying to simplify the terms for you so you understand what a public prosecutor is (clue, not a Judge) because it doesn't appear to be going in at your end.
From the post timed at 1041:
Because if you did you would know that a District Attorney / Public Prosecutor has no powers...
Quotation mark?
-
From the post timed at 1041:
Because if you did you would know that a District Attorney / Public Prosecutor has no powers...
Quotation mark?
Yes at the first mention of the phrase in my post you quoted you will notice it is encased with quotation marks.
A Public Prosecutor is the same as a District Attorney in terms of scope and remit. Neither are Judges, neither have the power to bestow guilt or innocence. They prosecute for the public good.
Are you clear on this now, or do you need more explanation?
Do you now want to try and rebutt what i have said, rather than attempting to go off at a tangent and avoiding the points i have made.
I'm really trying to help you through this but i suspect you are being deliberately obtuse here.
So rebutt away...... I'm waiting.
-
Definitions of the role of District Attorney / Public Prosecutor differ according to jurisdictions.
Here is a link about the Public Prosecutor's role in Portugal, if this is of any assistance.
http://www.euro-justice.com/member_states/portugal/country_report/2811/
-
Definitions of the role of District Attorney / Public Prosecutor differ according to jurisdictions.
Here is a link about the Public Prosecutor's role in Portugal, if this is of any assistance.
http://www.euro-justice.com/member_states/portugal/country_report/2811/
The intervention of the investigating judge, as inspector of the legality of acts, is never ex officio but takes place at the request of the prosecution service or of the police to check the validity of these acts (Sects. 268 and 269 CCP).
This involvement is justified by the fact that no one other than a judge may order acts which affect rights, freedom and guarantees protected by the Constitution (Sects. 268 and 269 CCP).
-
Definitions of the role of District Attorney / Public Prosecutor differ according to jurisdictions.
Here is a link about the Public Prosecutor's role in Portugal, if this is of any assistance.
http://www.euro-justice.com/member_states/portugal/country_report/2811/
Couldn't see anything in there about district attorneys. However, this is interesting:
However, whilst taking into consideration the lack of means available to the public prosecutor, the specialisation of police officers; and the need to preserve police technical and tactical autonomy, the Prosecutor-General supervises the exercise of intervention powers of the prosecution service in the following ways:
- if the crime under investigation carries a statutory prison sentence not exceeding five years, the prosecution service should only interfere if it can be justified under special circumstances. For instance, the quality of the police officers, the victims or the particular circumstances around their practices;
- if the crime carries a statutory prison sentence of more than five years in prison, the prosecution service will intervene directly in the investigation, analysing the crime, defining the procedures of the investigation or even participating in it.
The McCanns, supposedly, were under investigation for the crime of finding and concealing a body with the intention of concealing, also, the fact of a death.
And isn't that supposed to carry a sentence of just two years?
-
Aside from the role of a judge in general, the extracts that you posted concern an investigating judge.
In some jurisdictions, the PP will appoint an investigating judge (or magistrate) to - officially, at least - lead the police investigation.
Without wading through hundreds of pages, I have no idea whether an investigating judge in Portugal would be the same judge overseeing a case in a trial. I doubt it, but I haven't checked. Perhaps you have. If so, please share.
-
Couldn't see anything in there about district attorneys. However, this is interesting:
However, whilst taking into consideration the lack of means available to the public prosecutor, the specialisation of police officers; and the need to preserve police technical and tactical autonomy, the Prosecutor-General supervises the exercise of intervention powers of the prosecution service in the following ways:
- if the crime under investigation carries a statutory prison sentence not exceeding five years, the prosecution service should only interfere if it can be justified under special circumstances. For instance, the quality of the police officers, the victims or the particular circumstances around their practices;
- if the crime carries a statutory prison sentence of more than five years in prison, the prosecution service will intervene directly in the investigation, analysing the crime, defining the procedures of the investigation or even participating in it.
The McCanns, supposedly, were under investigation for the crime of finding and concealing a body with the intention of concealing, also, the fact of a death.
And isn't that supposed to carry a sentence of just two years?
Hmmm. I have my doubts about that one.
The crime being investigated was a child's unexplained disappearance - which could be a potential stranger abduction / paedo gang/ murder (whoever may have been responsible). Wouldn't that activate the necessity for the prosecution service to appoint an investigating judge?
What's not clear to me is how active an investigating judge in Portugal would actually be in such a case - would that person have been actively directing the police investigation, or pointing out the more mundane aspects, such as ensuring that "interpreters" had signed the relevant form, or authorising search warrants?
-
Perhaps a legal eagle here with some understanding of the Portuguese system actually works could help here.
-
Hmmm. I have my doubts about that one.
The crime being investigated was a child's unexplained disappearance - which could be a potential stranger abduction / paedo gang/ murder (whoever may have been responsible). Wouldn't that activate the necessity for the prosecution service to appoint an investigating judge?
What's not clear to me is how active an investigating judge in Portugal would actually be in such a case - would that person have been actively directing the police investigation, or pointing out the more mundane aspects, such as ensuring that "interpreters" had signed the relevant form, or authorising search warrants?
You mean you doubt Harrison's word?
Why is that?
He says in his report that he considered solely the possibility that Madeleine had been murdered and offered to consider other possibilities or scenarios on request.
Arguably the most fraudulent claim (of many!) in Amaral's book is the claim that Harrison changed the investigation into one for a little girl presumed dead.
Harrison did no such thing.
This report considers solely the possibility that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body is concealed within the areas previously searched by Police in Zone 1 around Praia Da Luz. Other scenarios or possibilities may on request be considered and be subject of a further report.
(Mark Harrison)
-
You mean you doubt Harrison's word?
Why is that?
He says in his report that he considered solely the possibility that Madeleine had been murdered and offered to consider other possibilities or scenarios on request.
Arguably the most fraudulent claim (of many!) in Amaral's book is the claim that Harrison changed the investigation into one for a little girl presumed dead.
Harrison did no such thing.
This report considers solely the possibility that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body is concealed within the areas previously searched by Police in Zone 1 around Praia Da Luz. Other scenarios or possibilities may on request be considered and be subject of a further report.
(Mark Harrison)
That's not what I said. Harrison was lending his services to investigate concrete possibilities in the hypothesis that she had been murdered. Yes. But would that have changed the official hierarchical link between the PP/investigating judge/magistrate and the police? That is what I doubt.
In some jurisdictions, the police take the lead in an investigation (e.g., UK); in others the prosecution service is the lead and appoints an investigating judge, on their behalf, to lead the police, who then report back up and instruct back down.
Depending on how the system works in various countries, the investigating judge may play an active role in directing the police, or a relatively passive one in ensuring that whatever the police are doing conforms with the law, but otherwise lets the police get on with the investigation.
At least that's my understanding.
If anyone with legal expertise on how the Portuguese legal system works is on here, perhaps they would like to clarify. And I'd be interested in both how it's supposed to work in theory, and in practice.
-
If the magistrate presiding was directing the PJ to investigate all these other possibilities, why was the PJ directing Harrison to investigate, alone, murder?
Isn't it most likely that Amaral simply lied?
-
You mean you doubt Harrison's word?
Why is that?
He says in his report that he considered solely the possibility that Madeleine had been murdered and offered to consider other possibilities or scenarios on request.
Arguably the most fraudulent claim (of many!) in Amaral's book is the claim that Harrison changed the investigation into one for a little girl presumed dead.
Harrison did no such thing.
This report considers solely the possibility that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body is concealed within the areas previously searched by Police in Zone 1 around Praia Da Luz. Other scenarios or possibilities may on request be considered and be subject of a further report.
(Mark Harrison)
I agree with that Ferryman. The report was quite clear that he was following a particular brief, and was therefore confined to that brief.
Amaral appeared to morph that into a specific conclusion by Harrison.
He also managed to misinterpret the FSS report.
I do wonder how this chap ever managed to become a detective.
-
...whilst in the AG's opinion there was no evidence based on the collected evidence so far (but remember the investigation was incomplete), as suspects they had still not demonstrated their innocence (those are the AG's words not mine).
Yes, but we have to admit that the evidence has to be extremely solid in a case involving people who 1) are foreigners (scrutiny of their country authorities), 2) have obtained the status of victims thanks to very well orchestrated media campaigns and 3) have been outrageously suspected by incompetent police (in order to save the face) ITO
The PGR could have used legal means to force the witnesses to come back and reconstruct. It would have taken time and likely was not worthwhile : unwilling to do it, they would mess it. This also is likely why the McCanns weren't not questioned again.
The negative result of the MP reconstruction initiative (like the systematic defensive position of Mrs McCann concerning the 48 questions) is nevertheless a darkness engraved in stone.
-
I agree with that Ferryman. The report was quite clear that he was following a particular brief, and was therefore confined to that brief.
Amaral appeared to morph that into a specific conclusion by Harrison.
He also managed to misinterpret the FSS report.
I do wonder how this chap ever managed to become a detective.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
If the magistrate presiding was directing the PJ to investigate all these other possibilities, why was the PJ directing Harrison to investigate, alone, murder?
Isn't it most likely that Amaral simply lied?
It may depend on how active a role the investigating magistrate was actually playing. Was it actively leading the investigation (I don't get that impression), or was it was just rubber-stamping search warrants, interpreter forms, and authorising phone-tapping?
I'm not criticising the magistrate as I don't know exactly what role they are supposed to play (active or mainly passive?), nor how many other cases they may have had to deal with at the same time.
-
I translated this already I don't remember on what thread.
The MP directs the investigation, the judge (Frias) making sure fundamental rights are respected, his attributions being listed a) to e).
Durante o inquérito, cujo prazo máximo é de oito meses (havendo arguidos sujeitos a medidas de coacção, o prazo é de seis a oito meses, conforme o tipo de crimes de crime e a complexidade da investigação), o Ministério Público dirige ou realiza directamente a investigação, estando, no entanto, reservados ao juiz certos actos que se prendem com garantias e direitos fundamentais e designadamente:
a) o primeiro interrogatório judicial de arguido detido;
b) a aplicação de medidas de coacção ou de garantia patrimonial, salvo o termo de identidade e residência;
c) a realização de buscas e apreensões em escritório de advogado, consultório médico ou estabelecimento bancário;
d) a intercepção e gravação de conversações ou comunicações telefónicas;
e) a apreensão de correspondência.
-
I translated this already I don't remember on what thread.
The MP directs the investigation, the judge (Frias) making sure fundamental rights are respected, his attributions being listed a) to e).
Durante o inquérito, cujo prazo máximo é de oito meses (havendo arguidos sujeitos a medidas de coacção, o prazo é de seis a oito meses, conforme o tipo de crimes de crime e a complexidade da investigação), o Ministério Público dirige ou realiza directamente a investigação, estando, no entanto, reservados ao juiz certos actos que se prendem com garantias e direitos fundamentais e designadamente:
a) o primeiro interrogatório judicial de arguido detido;
b) a aplicação de medidas de coacção ou de garantia patrimonial, salvo o termo de identidade e residência;
c) a realização de buscas e apreensões em escritório de advogado, consultório médico ou estabelecimento bancário;
d) a intercepção e gravação de conversações ou comunicações telefónicas;
e) a apreensão de correspondência.
Thanks Anne.
The Public Ministry is the Public Prosecutor's Office, I presume?
I haven't seen much in the files - aside from official authorisations or refusals - that would indicate that anyone beyond Amaral was dealing with day-to-day affairs.
There was something about some issue in a family court hearing at one point, from memory, but I don't recall anything else.
Or have you found anything substantially different?
-
The PJ nailed their colours pretty firmly to the mast during the "arguido" interview with Gerry McCann in September 2007:
____________
Regarding the signalling of cadaver odour in the vehicle that was rented in late May, license plate 49-DA-27, he says he cannot explain more than what he already has.
Regarding the signalling of human blood in the boot of the same vehicle, he says that he has no explanation for this fact.
When confronted with the fact that Madeleine’s DNA was collected from behind the sofa and in the boot of the vehicle, and analyzed by a British laboratory, situations that had already been described before, he says that he cannot explain.
___________
During this interview the arguido was informed of his duty to respect the secrecy of justice, as well as the consequences of not complying with it, stipulated in current law.
(a shame that elements of the PJ were not prepared to abide by that, it seems)
All in all, is it surprising that KM decided, on legal advice, not to play their games? (the line of questionning was clearly designed to incriminate the arguida, rather than find Madeleine).
And finally the "coordinator" shamefully chose to write a book about the case, accusing the parents in print (for his own profit) playing on and abusing his position of privilege and in the process
Altogether, not the PJs finest hour, really.
-
Despite the best efforts of some posters to derail the core message and obfuscate the facts are simple:
1) The archiving report was produced by a public prosecutor which is essentially the PT equivalent of a CPS Lawyer or a DA.
2) Public prosecutors cannot determine innocence or guilt, only a Judge in a Court can.
3) The Public Prosecutor's thesis was that there was no evidence to suggest the Mccann's had committed a crime in the "disturbed" (interupted, incomplete) investigation. This thesis was not a court ruled decision, it was an interpretation of the facts by a public prosecutor who has no legal basis to determine if someone has been found "not guilty".
4) However by not performing the reconstruction and allowing the investigation to move forward the McCann's had lost their chance to prove their innocence. How can you be exonerated if you have not proven your innocence?
5) Suspects the world over IN AN INVESTIGATION have to demonstrate their innocence in order to rule them out as suspects. Where were you on the night of..... No answer then you have not demonstrated you are innocent and the police will still look at you.
6) This was validated by the assistant chief constable of Leicestershire stating “While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence which clears them of involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.” He was saying they had not DEMONSTRATED THEIR INNOCENCE in exactly the same way the archiving report did. This statement has never been withdrawn by LP.
7) In the book banning case the Judges (real Judges in a real Court) stated that the PJ's thesis was an equally valid police led interpretation of the same facts as the prosecutors report. They stated:
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation, there were incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements, the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them, the movements of people immediately after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?), etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the aforementioned sniffer dogs."
"Where Amaral differs from the Prosecutors who wrote the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he [Amaral] makes of those facts."
We need, to stress the following: the facts that led to the applicants' constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not sufficiently valued by the Public Ministry's Prosecutors to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen from a different angle, may lead to a different conclusion from that of the prosecutors.
Suggestive data ("indications") that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that can legitimately be published as a book, as long as the interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved. In our view that said interpretation does not offend the applicants' rights."
8) In the book banning libel trial the prosecutor who wrote the archiving report stated on oath that the McCann's and their friends lied.
Until such time as these points are rebutted with full reasoning and evidence then this thread will fail to move forward.
You can go off in whatever tangent you like but these irrefutable facts which require either rebuttal or if not forthcoming then an acknowledgement that they are correct.
-
Albertini. Amid all of the waffle, are you allowing for the presumption of innocence (probably better termed as "assumption of innocence".
"A principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant and relieves the defendant of any burden to prove his or her innocence"
assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v Kentucky 1978).
The principle holds good for all civilised jurisdictions.
-
Albertini. Amid all of the waffle, are you allowing for the presumption of innocence (probably better termed as "assumption of innocence".
"A principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant and relieves the defendant of any burden to prove his or her innocence"
assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v Kentucky 1978).
The principle holds good for all civilised jurisdictions.
You too have made the same mistake as others.
Yes in a CRIMINAL TRIAL but NOT in a police investigation where suspects have to demonstrate their innocence to be ruled out of investigative enquiries.
We have both the archiving report that so many McCann supporters cling to AND THE Leicestershire Police BOTH stating the Mccann's have failed to "demonstrate their innocence".
What is waffle? Which bit? Pick any of the points you call as waffle and i will walk you through it.
-
You too have made the same mistake as others.
Yes in a CRIMINAL TRIAL but NOT in a police investigation where suspects have to demonstrate their innocence to be ruled out of investigative enquiries.
What is waffle? Which bit? Pick any of the points you call as waffle and i will walk you through it.
Of course the police must approach each "suspect" from the point of view that they may have "dun it" and see if they can find evidence accordingly.
Howver, the onus is entirely on the police to find evidence (forensic, confessional, circumstantial) sufficent to bring a case to trial. The "suspect"does not have to do anything, provide any evidence of innocence or answer any questions.
The
-
Of course the police must approach each "suspect" from the point of view that they may have "dun it" and see if they can find evidence accordingly.
Hover, the onus is entirely on the police to find evidence (forensic, confessional, circumstantial) sufficient to bring a case to trial. The "suspect"does not have to do anything, provide any evidence of innocence or answer any questions.
Nope you are wrong, because it is clear suspects DO have to prove their innocence as we have both the archiving report AND Leicestershire Police stating on record (and never rescinded since by either body) that the McCann's have failed to prove their innocence.
So if suspects don't need to prove their innocence why did you think those two reports specifically mention that the Mccann's didn't prove theirs?
This is what actual prosecutors and law enforcement have said about the McCann's!
No, of course suspects are under no obligation to prove their innocence but that means they will still remain suspects precisely because they do not or cannot rules themselves out and prove to the investigation that they are innocent.
Clear now?
-
We have both the archiving report that so many McCann supporters cling to AND THE Leicestershire Police BOTH stating the Mccann's have failed to "demonstrate their innocence".
The Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police (or was it the Assistant Chief Constable?) did say that -- while the McCanns were still arguidos.
At that juncture, he probably would not have read the case files, then (at least officially) still under secrecy.
He emphatically and unreservedly would not say the same today ...
-
We have both the archiving report that so many McCann supporters cling to AND THE Leicestershire Police BOTH stating the Mccann's have failed to "demonstrate their innocence".
The Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police (or was it the Assistant Chief Constable?) did say that -- while the McCanns were still arguidos.
At that juncture, he probably would not have read the case files, then (at least officially) still under secrecy.
He emphatically and unreservedly would not say the same today ...
The comment was made on the 7th July 2008 in open court. The archiving report was dated 21st July 2008 (and was worked on with LP who worked with the PJ all the way through the case and process)
It has never publically been rescinded has it.
What does that tell you?
edited to add: It was the assistant chief constable on behalf of the force.
-
duplicate post removed!
Sorry!
-
I agree with that Ferryman. The report was quite clear that he was following a particular brief, and was therefore confined to that brief.
Amaral appeared to morph that into a specific conclusion by Harrison.
He also managed to misinterpret the FSS report.
I do wonder how this chap ever managed to become a detective.
I'm aware of that. But would Harrison's involvement change the chain of command in terms of the Portuguese judicial process? That seems unlikely to me...
-
The comment was made on the 7th July 2008 in open court. The archiving report was dated 21st July 2008 (and was worked on with LP who worked with the PJ all the way through the case and process)
It has never publically been rescinded has it.
What does that tell you?
edited to add: It was the assistant chief constable on behalf of the force.
Dunno.
I haven't double-checked the dates, but I'll assume that you have.
If your dates are correct, it tells me that the comment was made 2 weeks prior to the official announcement of the archiving report, which lifted the arguido status of all three of them.
Would the decision have been different if that hearing had been held 2 weeks after the archiving?
-
Dunno.
I haven't double-checked the dates, but I'll assume that you have.
If your dates are correct, it tells me that the comment was made 2 weeks prior to the official announcement of the archiving report, which lifted the arguido status of all three of them.
Would the decision have been different if that hearing had been held 2 weeks after the archiving?
Nope, cos do you think anything new would have come out in those two weeks? If so what was it?
Given the size of the report do you not think it was virtually written up 2 weeks before (withe, i believe the LP's help).
And finally both the archiving and the LP say the same thing about them failing to prove their innocence. They are singing from the same hymn sheet.
-
Nope, cos do you think anything new would have come out in those two weeks? If so what was it?
Given the size of the report do you not think it was virtually written up 2 weeks before (withe, i believe the LP's help).
And finally both the archiving and the LP say the same thing about them failing to prove their innocence. They are singing from the same hymn sheet.
I have no idea how long such hearings have to be booked in advance. The timing of that hearing was a bit unfortunate.
At the time of that hearing, the case had not yet been officially archived.
Officially, the parents were still arguidos. They wouldn't have been 2 weeks later.
I have no idea whether LP would have been able to hand over more if the hearing had taken place once their arguido status had been lifted.
It did involve a complex relationship with foreign authorities.
And well-placed fans on open windows.
-
You too have made the same mistake as others.
Yes in a CRIMINAL TRIAL but NOT in a police investigation where suspects have to demonstrate their innocence to be ruled out of investigative enquiries.
We have both the archiving report that so many McCann supporters cling to AND THE Leicestershire Police BOTH stating the Mccann's have failed to "demonstrate their innocence".
What is waffle? Which bit? Pick any of the points you call as waffle and i will walk you through it.
1. Could you tell me where LP state that the McCanns have failed to "demonstrate their innocence".
2 No one has to prove or demonstrate their innocence. A defendant has the right to silence.
-
The comment was made on the 7th July 2008 in open court. The archiving report was dated 21st July 2008 (and was worked on with LP who worked with the PJ all the way through the case and process)
It has never publically been rescinded has it.
What does that tell you?
edited to add: It was the assistant chief constable on behalf of the force.
That the comment was made a fortnight before the process was archived -- and 3 weeks before the files were made public.
And your point is?
-
In States of Law, it belongs to the accusation to show a suspect is guilty and not to the suspect to prove he's not.
But everybody knows that mysteries left without a solution generate irreparably a lot of suspicions based or not on facts or convictions from which the protagonists and the persons close to them will have to suffer.
I think that this is the reality the PGR meant. It's a kind of bonus pater familias remark.
They imo childishly chose to postpone a confrontation that sooner or later will require from them to be reasonable.
-
No, of course suspects are under no obligation to prove their innocence but that means they will still remain suspects precisely because they do not or cannot rules themselves out and prove to the investigation that they are innocent.
Clear now?
Nope. Not clear at all.
As far as I've been able to work out, once people become arguidos, they retain that status until the end of the investigation, i.e., when the authorities decide to charge someone or archive a case. And there are laws governing how long an investigation may remain ongoing.
Depending on which version of this ever-changing code one examines, the timeframe for a criminal investigation ranges from 6 months to an exceptional 18 months, depending on various factors.
-
These are the exact words of the assistant chief constable:
"While one or both of them [the McCanns] may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance."
Made (I repeat and emphasise) before the files were released.
And Benice, earlier, neatly put the words of the Portuguese prosecutor into proper context.
There is (now) a great deal of very clear evidence that eliminates them [the McCanns and Murat] from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance ...
-
As the investigation was ended because Mr Murat couldn't be arguido any longer, the McCanns likely would have been granted an "inquiry" (instrucção) had they required it (it was their right as arguidos). It is the magistrate hierarchically superior to the magistrate who decided to shelve the case who accepts or rejects such a request. The inquiry is directed by a special judge. He is the one who decides which interventions must be performed. There's always an oral and contradictory debate in which participate the Ministério Público, the arguidos and their lawyers. After that the judge decides whether charges are enough or not for Court.
I'm not sure but it seems that if the McCanns had made that option, their arguido status wouldn't have been lifted. It seems likely that the Inquiry Judge would have first required the reconstruction of events since the boosting of the investigation needed it. But they would have had some rights, as they had rights in the investigation, being arguidos, though they didn't use them. The main right was to require specific interventions related to the disappearance of Madeleine.
-
These are the exact words of the assistant chief constable:
"While one or both of them [the McCanns] may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance."
Made (I repeat and emphasise) before the files were released.
And Benice, earlier, neatly put the words of the Portuguese prosecutor into proper context.
There is (now) a great deal of very clear evidence that eliminates them [the McCanns and Murat] from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance ...
You know very well that it is wishful thinking, Ferryman. You can argue 24 hours a day and up to the end of your life they're innocent because of this or that (which eventually is true), the McCanns started to be looked at with suspicion when they came out of church smiling like superstars on Madeleine's 2007 birthday. Photos were taken and the planet unfortunately saw them. This was reversible nevertheless, had they collaborated with the police. But there again they said they did, but they didn't. This is what people remember, whatever the LC or the AG claimed, and documented books will be written calling a cat a cat, no matter CR.
-
You know very well that it is wishful thinking, Ferryman. You can argue 24 hours a day and up to the end of your life they're innocent because of this or that (which eventually is true), the McCanns started to be looked at with suspicion when they came out of church smiling like superstars on Madeleine's 2007 birthday. Photos were taken and the planet unfortunately saw them. This was reversible nevertheless, had they collaborated with the police. But there again they said they did, but they didn't. This is what people remember, whatever the LC or the AG claimed, and documented books will be written calling a cat a cat, no matter CR.
They didn't come out of the church smiling like superstars. An unexpected incident happened with balloons which caused everyone to laugh.
So let me get this straight Anne - when people were being kind to them and offering them their best wishes and smiling at them - you think they should have glared back at them do you? Is that what you would do to people who were showing you kindness at a terrible time in your life. Since when has an appreciative smile been a sign of guilt.
I've never heard such spiteful nonsense.
-
They didn't come out of the church smiling like superstars. An unexpected incident happened with balloons which caused everyone to laugh.
So let me get this straight Anne - when people were being kind to them and offering them their best wishes and smiling at them - you think they should have glared back at them do you? Is that what you would do to people who were showing you kindness at a terrible time in your life. Since when has an appreciative smile been a sign of guilt.
I've never heard such spiteful nonsense.
Were you there, Benice, or is it a balloon explanation hearsay ? What is striking isn't an eventual laughing, what's striking is that they look relieved.
If you "never heard such spiteful nonsense", you haven't heard much !
-
I have a vague and unpalatable memory of some patently doctored you-tube clip.
But suspicion on the McCanns took a grip when the Eddie and Keela roadshow hit town ...
I'll get my wrists slapped if I go on ...
-
Were you there, Benice, or is it a balloon explanation hearsay ? What is striking isn't an eventual laughing, what's striking is that they look relieved.
If you "never heard such spiteful nonsense", you haven't heard much !
It's on a video. They probably smiled at their twins too - and even laughed with them when they played with them - even though they were devastated over the loss of their beloved daughter. Perhaps you think it would be better for those little children if they never saw their their mummy and daddy smile at them ever again?
Your comment was spiteful and grossly unfair IMO.
-
It's on a video. They probably smiled at their twins too - and even laughed with them when they played with them - even though they were devastated over the loss of their beloved daughter. Perhaps you think it would be better for those little children if they never saw their their mummy and daddy smile at them ever again?
Your comment was spiteful and grossly unfair IMO.
Grossly unfair to pretend they were smiling at their kids on the photos, Benice, they weren't.
If you read honestly, you'll see that I never said I started to suspect the McCanns when I saw those photos. I said people started to suspect them thenand I'm sure you are aware of this.
When those photos were taken, I vaguely knew, through my fluent English speaking kids who were mimicking Mr McCann's accent, a little girl had disappeared. I thought she wandered off and could have been killed by a car because she was small and it was dark. I didn't think more of it. Months after, in Paris, I was shocked because people were believing the parents were involved. This is when I decided I had to learn more about it.
-
Grossly unfair to pretend they were smiling at their kids on the photos, Benice, they weren't.
I was discussing the point that they would still smile and laugh with their twins despite what had happened.
Apparently according to some, if they smiled at all it was 'proof' that they didn't care.
If people are going to use photographs of the McCanns smiling as 'evidence' against them, then there are far more photos around of them looking very sad and serious which, by the same token, could be put forward as 'evidence' of how badly affected they were by the loss of their daughter. There are plenty to choose from.
-
1. Could you tell me where LP state that the McCanns have failed to "demonstrate their innocence".
2 No one has to prove or demonstrate their innocence. A defendant has the right to silence.
1) What part of the statement read out in open court don't you understand matches that they have not proven their innocence?
2) Yes in court, but in an investigation their right to silence does not eliminate them from suspicion becuase by reminaing silent they have not demonstrated their innocence.
-
That the comment was made a fortnight before the process was archived -- and 3 weeks before the files were made public.
And your point is?
It's quite clear what my point is. I have been saying it for the last two or three pages.
-
At that juncture, he probably would not have read the case files, then (at least officially) still under secrecy.
He emphatically and unreservedly would not say the same today ...
Wrong! As the archiving report states:
The PJ, as in probably no other investigation in Portugal, withheld no effort, in the sense of providing exceptional technical means, manpower and financing towards the discovery of the child and the determination of the truth of the facts, having been completely accompanied in this effort by the Leicestershire Constabulary, the police department headquartered in the city of Leicestershire, from where most of the elements of the holiday group are from.
If they have changed their mind why have they not withdrawn it?
-
'Morning Albertini,
We are in danger of going round in circles here. What you quote is part of the 'foregoing' all of which the AG studied and took into account before making his final decision. If he had thought the above was an impediment to the final decision he did make, he would have said so and arrived at a different conclusion.
It seems clear to me that because the recon didn't happen, the AG felt that damage had been done TO the McCanns not BY them. However it's also clear that he did not believe the non-recon (and the facts that were left unclarified because of it), constituted a strong enough reason to affect his final conclusion. Probably because he had no way of predicting what the outcome of a reconstruction would have been.
(must go out now)
No he would not because in an investigation ther can be no evidence to show suspects have committed a crime BUT those suspects can still not have demonstrated their innocence.
What it means here is that in the incomplete investigation the facts gathered (only in the prosecutor's opinion) weren't suggestive that the Mccann's had committed a crime but they had still not demonstrated their innocence.
It's similar to a case not moving forward from investigation to trial becuase of a "lack of evidence".
The two statements regarding there being no evidence of a crime being committed and them not demonstrating their innocence are not mutually exclusive.
-
These are the exact words of the assistant chief constable:
"While one or both of them [the McCanns] may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance."
Made (I repeat and emphasise) before the files were released.
And Benice, earlier, neatly put the words of the Portuguese prosecutor into proper context.
There is (now) a great deal of very clear evidence that eliminates them [the McCanns and Murat] from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance ...
So can you tell me what evidence came out, and quote your sources, between 7th July and 21st July which would have changed the assessment made by LP?
-
After all the suspicion, in the investigation, was their disposing of a body not their killing their daughter.
Not true. The Madeleine investigation was a murder enquiry ...
Harrison was tasked to consider a murder and a concealment of the body nearby, nowhere in the task is it mentioned that the mccanns killed her! thats just your spin on it.
And no, the madeleine investigation was not a murder enquiry, only after a certain amount of time had lapsed looking for a live child
Quote
This report has highlighted the extensive and professional efforts made by the Portuguese authorities regarding the search to locate Madeleine McCann alive. It has now begun to consider further opportunities to re search locations in order to address the possibility that she has been murdered and concealed nearby. This would be a proportionate and appropriate response given the elapsed time since her disappearance and previous experience in such similar cases
Unquote
Mark Harrison
Apologies for interrupting the discussion on whether Mccanns have been cleared. They obviously have not been. Not by police, not by any lawyer, or prosecutor, not by any judge, only by journalists and internet posters. Oh and ferryman, you cannnot speak for the police and state they would not say the same today!Unless you can read their minds
@)(++(*
Oh and for the record no authorities are classing this case as an abduction
PJ - type of crime unknown
British Foreign Office - no evidence of abduction, therefore classed as missing
-
I was discussing the point that they would still smile and laugh with their twins despite what had happened.
Apparently according to some, if they smiled at all it was 'proof' that they didn't care.
If people are going to use photographs of the McCanns smiling as 'evidence' against them, then there are far more photos around of them looking very sad and serious which, by the same token, could be put forward as 'evidence' of how badly affected they were by the loss of their daughter. There are plenty to choose from.
Why are you always changing the meaning of the post you reply to ? Who said they didn't care ?
Photos transmit a feeling, that's all.
If you contemplate the hypothesis, as possible as the abduction one, that they disposed of their daughter's body, you can understand they felt relieved (no suspicion on them).
-
It's on a video. They probably smiled at their twins too - and even laughed with them when they played with them - even though they were devastated over the loss of their beloved daughter. Perhaps you think it would be better for those little children if they never saw their their mummy and daddy smile at them ever again?
Your comment was spiteful and grossly unfair IMO.
And what do you make of this paparazzi video taken a few days after??? Hardly a picture of a grieving parent? Hmmm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VlS-gO5Ask&feature=youtube_gdata_player
-
No he would not because in an investigation ther can be no evidence to show suspects have committed a crime BUT those suspects can still not have demonstrated their innocence.
What it means here is that in the incomplete investigation the facts gathered (only in the prosecutor's opinion) weren't suggestive that the Mccann's had committed a crime but they had still not demonstrated their innocence.
It's similar to a case not moving forward from investigation to trial becuase of a "lack of evidence".
The two statements regarding there being no evidence of a crime being committed and them not demonstrating their innocence are not mutually exclusive.
Could you cite a few cases, or even one, where people who have never been arrested, never been charged or taken to court because there is no evidence against them, have been declared innocent.
-
Could you cite a few cases, or even one, where people who have never been arrested, never been charged or taken to court because there is no evidence against them, have been declared innocent.
How many times do i have to say this. Only a Court can "declare" innocence NOT a prosecutor.
No court has declared the McCann's innocent.
The archiving report stated that from the information gathered from the files there was no evidence that they had committed a crime but they still had not demonstrated their innocence.
A Judge ruled that the Prosecutor's report was an INTERPRETATION (not a deifinite ruling) of the facts of the case and the Court said that the PJ's thesis was an equally valid interpretation of those self same facts.
-
How many times do i have to say this. Only a Court can "declare" innocence NOT a prosecutor.
No court has declared the McCann's innocent.
The archiving report stated that from the information gathered from the files there was no evidence that they had committed a crime but they still had not demonstrated their innocence.
A Judge ruled that the Prosecutor's report was an INTERPRETATION (not a deifinite ruling) of the facts of the case and the Court said that the PJ's thesis was an equally valid interpretation of those self same facts.
Hi Albertini. How can someone be declared innocent of a crime they have never been charged with?
-
Hi Albertini. How can someone be declared innocent of a crime they have never been charged with?
Particularly when the Portuguese authorities hadn't even ascertained what type of crime they were investigating!
-
Hi Albertini. How can someone be declared innocent of a crime they have never been charged with?
You are mixing up the processes and procedures.
I know i am repeating myself BUT during an investigation to remove themselves as suspects people have to "demonstrate their innocence" to the investigators.
If they can do so and rule themselves out as suspects then it is safe to assume they were to use your term "innocent".
You do not have to be charged with a crime to remain a suspect, as that usually means there is either not enough evidence to charge you or no evidence that investigators have yet found.
But the absence of evidence does not automatically mean that you are no longer a suspect in an investigation.
-
Particularly when the Portuguese authorities hadn't even ascertained what type of crime they were investigating!
Terrible derisory spin, of course they knew what they were investigating, initially a disappearance/abduction and search for a live child, later a possible murder, and search for a dead child, the PJ concluded it was unclear what had happened
-
Particularly when the Portuguese authorities hadn't even ascertained what type of crime they were investigating!
The McCann's were in 2008 when the case was archived, and to this date, as no new evidence has come forward, regarded as suspects in the disappearance of their daughter in Portugal.
Hence the archiving report's "failure to demonstrate innocence" paragraph.
-
How many times do i have to say this. Only a Court can "declare" innocence NOT a prosecutor.
No court has declared the McCann's innocent.
The archiving report stated that from the information gathered from the files there was no evidence that they had committed a crime but they still had not demonstrated their innocence.
A Judge ruled that the Prosecutor's report was an INTERPRETATION (not a deifinite ruling) of the facts of the case and the Court said that the PJ's thesis was an equally valid interpretation of those self same facts.
But surely that would mean than anyone who was in PdL that night - or even further afield, who did not have an alibi and so could not 'demonstrate their innocence' - is a suspect in this case - and so should be investigated? Do these people know they are suspects?
Incidentally Judge Tug doesn't appear to agree with you - as he allowed the AG's Final Report to be produced in court as valid and legally accredited evidence that the McCanns were not guilty of any crime. If it was merely someone's personal INTERPRETATION of the case then it was not worth the paper it was written on - and IMO would not have been allowed to be presented as evidence as surely it would just be Hearsay? (McCann v Bennett)
-
But surely that would mean than anyone who was in PdL that night - or even further afield, who did not have an alibi and so could not 'demonstrate their innocence' - is a suspect in this case - and so should be investigated? Do these people know they are suspects?
Incidentally Judge Tug doesn't appear to agree with you - as he allowed the AG's Final Report to be produced in court as valid and legally accredited evidence that the McCanns were not guilty of any crime. If it was merely someone's personal INTERPRETATION of the case then it was not worth the paper it was written on - and IMO would not have been allowed to be presented as evidence as surely it would just be Hearsay? (McCann v Bennett)
Hi Benice, I was just trying to put together a post saying the same thing.
-
The McCann's were in 2008 when the case was archived, and to this date, as no new evidence has come forward, regarded as suspects in the disappearance of their daughter in Portugal.
Hence the archiving report's "failure to demonstrate innocence" paragraph.
They are not "to this date" regarded as suspects, Albertini. The arguido status, along with Murat, was lifted in July 2008.
-
But surely that would mean than anyone who was in PdL that night - or even further afield, who did not have an alibi and so could not 'demonstrate their innocence' - is a suspect in this case - and so should be investigated? Do these people know they are suspects?
Thats being silly now. Of course not everyne is a suspect. Police make people suspects for a REASON.
-
And what do you make of this paparazzi video taken a few days after??? Hardly a picture of a grieving parent? Hmmm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VlS-gO5Ask&feature=youtube_gdata_player
How do you know he's not laughing at something his children are saying or doing.
People do smile and laugh in times of grief - it's not a sign of anything sinister or proof that they are not grieving. They may not smile anywhere near as often as they did before tragedy struck but it does happen. I speak from experience - and I'm sure lots of other people can say the same.
-
How do you know he's not laughing at something his children are saying or doing.
I dont and neither do you, chances are the kids were in the creche anyway, and the laugh was with some blonde haired woman if you look, being happy as larry is not normal IMO! So lets agree to differ.
-
I dont and neither do you, chances are the kids were in the creche anyway, and the laugh was with some blonde haired woman if you look, being happy as larry is not normal IMO! So lets agree to differ.
OK.
-
Thats being silly now. Of course not everyne is a suspect. Police make people suspects for a REASON.
Not so apparently Red. If you can't 'demonstrate your innocence' then you are a suspect. I can demonstrate my innocence because I can prove I wasn't in PdL that day, but what about the people who were - but who can't prove they were not involved. Apparently even if there is NO evidence that you have committed a crime and it is apparent that you were not involved - until you can 'demonstrate your innocence' you are a suspect.
It's not my theory - obviously.
-
Not so apparently Red. If you can't 'demonstrate your innocence' then you are a suspect. I can demonstrate my innocence because I can prove I wasn't in PdL that day, but what about the people who were - but who can't prove they were not involved. Apparently even if there is NO evidence that you have committed a crime and it is apparent that you were not involved - until you can 'demonstrate your innocence' you are a suspect.
It's not my theory - obviously.
No, it has gone over your head seemingly, you have got it backwards. Only persons of interest to the police are relevant here.
-
But surely that would mean than anyone who was in PdL that night - or even further afield, who did not have an alibi and so could not 'demonstrate their innocence' - is a suspect in this case - and so should be investigated? Do these people know they are suspects?
Incidentally Judge Tug doesn't appear to agree with you - as he allowed the AG's Final Report to be produced in court as valid and legally accredited evidence that the McCanns were not guilty of any crime. If it was merely someone's personal INTERPRETATION of the case then it was not worth the paper it was written on - and IMO would not have been allowed to be presented as evidence as surely it would just be Hearsay? (McCann v Bennett)
No that is being silly, clearly there has to be a reason for suspicion and as the Mccann's were the last people to see the child alive and well they fell into the bracket of supsects who had to prove their innocence to investigators in order to be ruled out.
Of course the AG report is worth the paper it is written on, it was an official document after all that shelved the case. However the fact does remain that that document clearly and uneqivocally states the Mccann's had failed to demonstrate their innocence.
It also clearly states that there was no evidence that the Mccann's had committed a crime.
The view that it the AG report is an interpretation is not one i have made up, it is the clearly stated view of the Judges in the book case.
-
Not so apparently Red. If you can't 'demonstrate your innocence' then you are a suspect. I can demonstrate my innocence because I can prove I wasn't in PdL that day, but what about the people who were - but who can't prove they were not involved. Apparently even if there is NO evidence that you have committed a crime and it is apparent that you were not involved - until you can 'demonstrate your innocence' you are a suspect.
It's not my theory - obviously.
What firm and verified evidence exists that makes it apparent they were not involved?
After all absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Again my position and explanation is based on what both Leicestershirte Police and the AG report have said.
What's yours based on taking into account those two statements?
-
Albertini, you really do have this arse about face.
The relevant question is "What firm and verified evidence exists that makes it apparent they were involved"
You seem to be living in some sort of weird parallel universe where the onus is on "suspects" to prove their innocence. And you do seem to have a lot invested in trying to convince a bunch of forum members of this.
-
This part of the report leaves everybody dreaming and will remain as a piece of anthology : "The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared".
-
Albertini, you really do have this ar.. about face.
The relevant question is "What firm and verified evidence exists that makes it apparent they were involved"
You seem to be living in some sort of weird parallel universe where the onus is on "suspects" to prove their innocence. And you do seem to have a lot invested in trying to convince a bunch of forum members of this.
Every reader of basic criminal literature like Sir A. Conan Doyle's knows that the last person who saw the victim is a suspect as long as he has no alibi for the crime's hour.
-
Anne - are you aware that Conan Doyle was a writer of fiction?
-
No that is being silly, clearly there has to be a reason for suspicion and as the Mccann's were the last people to see the child alive and well they fell into the bracket of supsects who had to prove their innocence to investigators in order to be ruled out.
Of course the AG report is worth the paper it is written on, it was an official document after all that shelved the case. However the fact does remain that that document clearly and uneqivocally states the Mccann's had failed to demonstrate their innocence.
It also clearly states that there was no evidence that the Mccann's had committed a crime.
The view that it the AG report is an interpretation is not one i have made up, it is the clearly stated view of the Judges in the book case.
Yes it is silly, but it's not my contention it's yours.
Nobody ever declares anybody innocent when there is no evidence of any crime by them. The statement that there is NO evidence of any crime or that they are NOT considered to be suspects or persons of interest is what is declared in that case.
And that is precisely what the PT authorities and SY have stated about the McCanns.
-
Albertini, you really do have this ar.. about face.
The relevant question is "What firm and verified evidence exists that makes it apparent they were involved"
You seem to be living in some sort of weird parallel universe where the onus is on "suspects" to prove their innocence. And you do seem to have a lot invested in trying to convince a bunch of forum members of this.
I couldn't care less whether people believe it or not. It's one of the mysteries of debating the McCann case online, the lengths people will go to defend their pre conceived ideas about the involvement of the parents.
For the umpteenth time, in an investigation, those people who have the scope and means to be involved in a crime have to prove their innocence to the police to be ruled out as suspects.
That is not the same position or statement about a court case where a defendent is innocent until proven guilty.
Although as we have seen in the Barry George case even courts seem to indicate there are degrees of innocence.
Now if you can not or will not understand the difference between a police investigation and a criminal trial then i cannot help you.
But once you do understand that difference and if you have an open mind, it is clear what i am saying.
-
Yes it is silly, but it's not my contention it's yours.
Nobody ever declares anybody innocent when there is no evidence of any crime by them. The statement that there is NO evidence of any crime or that they are NOT considered to be suspects or persons of interest is what is declared in that case.
And that is precisely what the PT authorities and SY have stated about the McCanns.
No you have twisted and changed my contention to make it appear silly by stating anyone in PDL could be a suspect.
As i have told you there has to be grounds for suspicion. Usually the follow their SOP's and look first at those last in contact with the victim.
In this case family and friends were the last people to see the child alive and well and statistically family and friends are more likely to have been involved than a stranger.
This coupled with, as the judges in the book trial put it, "incogruant and contradictory statements" added to that suspicion.
Just because the police have found no evidence of guilt does not automatically mean that person is no longer a suspect.
They just haven't found the evidence to support it.
-
It is a basic fact of Law that no one has to prove their innocence to The Police or to a Court. Good God, how often does anyone have to say this?
Where are the arrests and where are the charges? Not even The PJ or The Portuguese Prosecutor can come up with either of those. And I am quite certain that they did try.
-
I couldn't care less whether people believe it or not. It's one of the mysteries of debating the McCann case online, the lengths people will go to defend their pre conceived ideas about the involvement of the parents.
For the umpteenth time, in an investigation, those people who have the scope and means to be involved in a crime have to prove their innocence to the police to be ruled out as suspects. That is not the same position or statement about a court case where a defendent is innocent until proven guilty.
Although as we have seen in the Barry George case even courts seem to indicate there are degrees of innocence.
Now if you can not or will not understand the difference between a police investigation and a criminal trial then i cannot help you.
But once you do understand that difference and if you have an open mind, it is clear what i am saying.
But that applies to everyone in and around PdL that night who, for whatever reason, cannot 'demonstrate their innocence' and therefore according to you must be regarded as suspects.
You can't just apply your theory to the McCanns. If it's a legal requirement then it must apply to everyone.
-
But that applies to everyone in and around PdL that night who, for whatever reason, cannot 'demonstrate their innocence' and therefore according to you must be regarded as suspects.
You can't just apply your theory to the McCanns. If it's a legal requirement then it must apply to everyone.
And since there are a great deal more of them, then the perpetrator is far more likely to be among the others. This is statistically more likely.
-
Albertini. This is where you and I have a fundamental difference in perspective. The fundamental role of the police service in this context is to solve the crime. The police will of course view each "person of interest" as potentially guilty and will see if they can find any evidence which will suggest guilt (of whatever crime they are investigating). However, the onus is firmly on the police to find that evidence. It is emphatically not on the "person of interest" to prove their innocence.
In the McCann case, the police have not managed to find any proof of wrongdoing by the McCanns or by any of the "Tapas 7" and there the matter rests. The McCanns et al do not have to do anything at all, and their is no obligation on them to "prove their innocence" to the police, to any forumite or indeed to your goodself.
-
I personally think that SY are confusing the search for Madeleine with the overwhelming need to prosecute someone as we have seen with Barry George. Political and other pressures are unfortunately combining to create a situation whereby the wrong person ends up serving a prison sentence.
I thought it was all about getting Madeleine back? Who gives a stuff about the perpetrator as long as she is safe. Finding and prosecuting someone is a secondary consideration and SY should realise this!!
-
1) What part of the statement read out in open court don't you understand matches that they have not proven their innocence?
2) Yes in court, but in an investigation their right to silence does not eliminate them from suspicion becuase by reminaing silent they have not demonstrated their innocence.
1. I asked where is the statement that you have claimed to have been made. what was the wording
2 I'm not suspicious of them and it appears the SY isn't either
-
I personally think that SY are confusing the search for Madeleine with the overwhelming need to prosecute someone as we have seen with Barry George. Political and other pressures are unfortunately combining to create a situation whereby the wrong person ends up serving a prison sentence.
I thought it was all about getting Madeleine back? Who gives a stuff about the perpetrator as long as she is safe. Finding and prosecuting someone is a secondary consideration and SY should realise this!!
Unfortunately, at this late stage, they have to find the perpetrator before they can find Madeleine. I would have thought that this was obvious.
-
Unfortunately, at this late stage, they have to find the perpetrator before they can find Madeleine. I would have thought that this was obvious.
Not at all. If Madeleine is still alive she us probably with people who don't even know the original abductor.
As far as the McCanns innocence is concerned Kate well and truly messed that one up by refusing to answer police questions. Little did she know then that everything would soon be in the public domain.
-
Anne - are you aware that Conan Doyle was a writer of fiction?
I'm aware Conan Doyle based his character, Sherlock Holmes, on one of the first SY's inspectors, Mr Whicher.
-
It seems everybody admits that Madeleine, if alive, is fine. Hence the overwhelming issue of guilt or innocence of her parents, as if it was so simple. Why isn't that question left to justice ?
-
It is a basic fact of Law that no one has to prove their innocence to The Police or to a Court. Good God, how often does anyone have to say this?
Where are the arrests and where are the charges? Not even The PJ or The Portuguese Prosecutor can come up with either of those. And I am quite certain that they did try.
Well clearly they do otherwise the archiving report and the leicester Police statment would not have said they have not demonstrated their evidence.
It is a fundamental part of policing that those suspected of involvement in a crime have to eliminate themselves from the Police's enquiries.
It is that process of elimination which is in essence "demonstrating your innocence" by ruling out the possibility you are guilty.
Good God, how many times do i have to say it?
It's basic stuff.
-
Can I just say, how can they be elimimated if they don't even know what the crime was??
-
Can I just say, how can they be elimimated if they don't even know what the crime was??
Yes. In the only crime contemplated by SY, abduction, it was neither difficult nor risky for Mr Redwood to claim the McCanns et al were not suspects.
-
1. I asked where is the statement that you have claimed to have been made. what was the wording
2 I'm not suspicious of them and it appears the SY isn't either
1) I believe amongst other places Kate McCann quoted it verbatim in her book Madeleine.
2) Good for you! Let's see what happens when the investigation is complete.
-
But that applies to everyone in and around PdL that night who, for whatever reason, cannot 'demonstrate their innocence' and therefore according to you must be regarded as suspects.
You can't just apply your theory to the McCanns. If it's a legal requirement then it must apply to everyone.
Who said anything about a legal requirement? It is a proven police investigative technique that law enforcement use in the event of a person's disappearance which is to look at the friends and family look at the family and need them to be "ruled out", or in other words, prove their innocence.
-
Can I just say, how can they be elimimated if they don't even know what the crime was??
Because the child was missing they were suspected of being involved in her disapperance. Chilldren just don't vanish into thin air!
-
It's one of the mysteries of debating the McCann case online, the lengths people will go to defend their pre conceived ideas about the involvement of the parents.
The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
Almost 400 years after, human mentalities haven't changed, though lots of discoveries occurred.
-
Albertini. This is where you and I have a fundamental difference in perspective.
Only because you do not understand.
The fundamental role of the police service in this context is to solve the crime.
Correct
The police will of course view each "person of interest" as potentially guilty and will see if they can find any evidence which will suggest guilt (of whatever crime they are investigating). However, the onus is firmly on the police to find that evidence. It is emphatically not on the "person of interest" to prove their innocence.
Incorrect! As has been stated countless times potential suspects are asked questions by investigators such as:
Where were you on the night of the 3rd?
Who were you with on the night of the 3rd?
What were you doing there on the night of the 3rd?
Or in Kate McCann's case, 48 questions which she refused to answer to demonstrate her innocence.
If the suspect can answer these questions to the satisfaction of the investigators, which fits in with the times, places and evidence found (amongst other things) at the crime scene then they have "proven their innocence".
If they cannot to use the police terminology "rule themselves out" by not demonstrating their innocence they remain suspects until such time as evidence is found to incriminate them (see the Stephen Lawrence case as an example), they remain suspects until clear and verifiable evidence comes along which rules them out (at which point they have proven their innocence), or another suspect is found with clear evidence against him or her (in which case the original suspects have their innocence proved by the weight of evidence against someone else).
In the McCann case, the police have not managed to find any proof of wrongdoing by the McCanns or by any of the "Tapas 7" and there the matter rests.
No, you are right (to a point in this case) and you must ask why that is? The best way to describe it is to run through the scenario and put oursleves in the mind of an investigator.
The first question is to look at the investigation itself and ask:
"Was the investigation completed"?
The answer is no, it was not completed, after all the archiving report clearly stated the investigation was "disturbed".
Then you would ask:
"Why was the investigation disturbed?"
The answer to that question again comes from the archiving report which states it was disturbed by the group's refusal to take part in a reconstruction.
Then as an investigator you must ask:
"Why would the group refuse to take part in an investigation which has been set up to look for their friend's missing child?"
You look at the evidence from the email exchanges when they were asked to take part and th reasons the group gave for not attending. These comprise of issues such as they do not see the benefit it will add to the investigation and they think the PJ are trying to set up their friends.
Then you ask:
"Are these credible reasons for not taking part when the group know the importance of the reconstruction to the investigation into their friend's missing child?"
The answer to that question is:
It is not normal for witnesses to dictate the reasons of why a reconstruction is needed, which ultimately is designed to help find their friend's missing child. Why should they question the way the investigation is seeking to move forward? They are doctors not policemen.
An investigator would conclude:
They would not expect us how to tell them to treat a patient so why are they questioning how we go about our work?
So in answer to that question, the querying of operational techniques - and what it will add to the investigation- is not a valid reason for the witnesses not to attend.
Ok, so what about the issue of "fit up". You then see that the group were offered, at the reconstruction, the presence of legal representation, the Foreign Office and leicestershire Police. So you can only conclude refusing to take part for fear of fit up is not a valid reason to not attend given the evidence.
So you are left feeling that it is highly suspicious as to why they would want to kill the reconstruction which seeks to move the investigation forward and generate new evidence when the reasons they have given for not taking part do not stand up to investigative scrutiny.
An investigator would ask:
"Why are they seeking to not take part in the recon and kill the investigation with reasons which are weak and have no basis in factual reality"?
And then conclude that the group refused to take part specifically and deliberately to prevent the generation of new evidence.
Then you must ask
"Why would they do that"?
You would conclude that there are only three possible outcomes of a reconstruction.
The first one is that no new evidence or leads would be generated, in which case, the status quo remains and there is no damage to the group in taking part, and there is no justifiable reason why the group should not take part.
The second is that evidence and leads would be generated which would help police find an abductor. As this is what the group have been stating this is what has happened all along there is no damage to the group in taking part, (indeed it would help the McCann's prove their innocence) and there is no justifiable reason why the group should not take part.
The third option is that new leads and evidence would be generated against the parents. Then there is damage to the group in taking part and a justifiable reason why the group should not take part.
So an investigator looking at these scenarios could only conclude that they did not attend and the only logical reason for that fits in with option three. It is the only one which makes sense of their decision not to attend.
As a consequence the McCann's have not only been unable to prove their innocence, but also the suspicion increases against them as a result of theirs and their friend's decision to kill the reconstruction and in turn the investigation.
So in answer to your point about lack of evidence the reason there is no evidence against them is because the investigation was/is incomplete and that it is only incomplete due to their refusal to take part in the reconstruction.
Which is highly suspicious in itself given my reasoning above.
The McCanns et al do not have to do anything at all, and their is no obligation on them to "prove their innocence" to the police, to any forumite or indeed to your goodself.
Wrong! Because once again the archiving report and Leicestershire Police's statement specifically say otherwise, don't they?
It's not me that has said it is the AG and LP, i am explaining to you what they mean.
-
1) I believe amongst other places Kate McCann quoted it verbatim in her book Madeleine.
2) Good for you! Let's see what happens when the investigation is complete.
1 So you are not sure. It sounds like another forum myth to me.
-
1 So you are not sure. It sounds like another forum myth to me.
She did and it isnt
-
She did and it isnt
So what is the verbatim quote that is in the book. Just saying its true doesn't count for much.
-
So what is the verbatim quote that is in the book. Just saying its true doesn't count for much.
Ferryman gave you the exact wording a page or two back.
It is there trust me if it wasn't he would know and take great delight in telling me@
On July 7 2008 Mrs Justice Hogg gave judgement in the Family Division of the High Court regarding the attempt by Kate & Gerry McCann to gain access to all the Leicester Police documents regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
The judgement was by agreement between the parties and was made in open court.
M/S Kate McCann in her book Madeleine has now provided an excerpt from the official submission of Leicester Police to the court regarding the matter and outlining the reasons why they could not agree to provide the documents. Signed by the assistant chief constable of Leicestershire it runs:
“While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.”
-
So what is the verbatim quote that is in the book. Just saying its true doesn't count for much.
oh dear, i am not in the business of saying things are true which can easily be checked as true or false
“While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence which clears them of involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.”
Assistant Chief Constable Leicestershire Police
And yes it is in Kates book! She said she was staggered.
Chapter 21 closing the case, sorry have no page number as i have the kindle version
So, you see, not a forum myth
-
Ferryman gave you the exact wording a page or two back.
It is there trust me if it wasn't he would know and take great delight in telling me@
On July 7 2008 Mrs Justice Hogg gave judgement in the Family Division of the High Court regarding the attempt by Kate & Gerry McCann to gain access to all the Leicester Police documents regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
The judgement was by agreement between the parties and was made in open court.
M/S Kate McCann in her book Madeleine has now provided an excerpt from the official submission of Leicester Police to the court regarding the matter and outlining the reasons why they could not agree to provide the documents. Signed by the assistant chief constable of Leicestershire it runs:
“While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.”
Well hallelujah, the police werent able to be railroaded by bloody lawyers into divulging information on a case to the SUSPECTS at the time! You couldnt make it up. Mind you the BBC and others gave them airtime while suspects to ask people to come forward to THEM with info even if they had already spoken to police on their personal phone line. Unprecedented. And the divs at the BBC passed it off as a police number
@)(++(*
-
oh dear, i am not in the business of saying things are true which can easily be checked as true or false
“While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence which clears them of involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.”
Assistant Chief Constable Leicestershire Police
And yes it is in Kates book! She said she was staggered.
Chapter 21 closing the case, sorry have no page number as i have the kindle version
So, you see, not a forum myth
I will check this as it seems a very odd thing to say.... you do realise that if the MCCanns had been charged they would have the right to see everything that LP had under the rules of disclosure
-
I will check this as it seems a very odd thing to say.... you do realise that if the MCCanns had been charged they would have the right to see everything that LP had under the rules of disclosure
Check it, its all there, as for rules of disclosure from police, ask someone else, i have no knowledge, but in any case they werent charged, so moot? At the time they HAD NO RIGHT as suspects to demand to see all the Uk police files, brass neck?
>@@(*&)
-
Not at all. If Madeleine is still alive she us probably with people who don't even know the original abductor.
As far as the McCanns innocence is concerned Kate well and truly messed that one up by refusing to answer police questions. Little did she know then that everything would soon be in the public domain.
Please don't do this. The Questions were asked many months after Madeleine disappeared, and were posed simply to implicate her parents. There was not one single question that could have helped to find Madeleine.
And of course, if you had actually read The Questions, then you would know that Kate had already answered most of them on the previous day.
I can hardly believe that you are doing this, unless you believe that we are all half a shilling worth of six pence. Or unless you think that this will add to the debate. It won't for me because it doesn't even make sense. But then you know that.
-
And of course, if you had actually read The Questions, then you would know that Kate had already answered most of them on the previous day.
-----
This is untrue, why are you still peddling it? do cite anything that shows she answered MOST of those questions the daybefore? It does not exist. the ONLY thing in her arguido interview answers is that she couldnt answer more than she already did about the DOG alerts, NOTHING else, qs 43 to 47, so NO, it is a lie to say she answered most of the questions put before
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041635/The-48-questions-Kate-McCann-wouldnt-answer--did.html
-
How do you know he's not laughing at something his children are saying or doing.
People do smile and laugh in times of grief - it's not a sign of anything sinister or proof that they are not grieving. They may not smile anywhere near as often as they did before tragedy struck but it does happen. I speak from experience - and I'm sure lots of other people can say the same.
So you've had an abducted child who may be in the hands of a paedophile have you Benice ?
-
Oh Dear God, not another one who has no hope. Another one who only thinks the worst. Another one for whom life is only dreadful.
Is there no hope in your soul? Is there nothing that makes you think that this small child might still be alive?. Do you think that every missing child is dead? Do you think that every missing child is dead by the hands of their parents? Do you even think about what you appear to think?
-
Oh Dear God, not another one who has no hope. Another one who only thinks the worst. Another one for whom life is only dreadful.
Is there no hope in your soul? Is there nothing that makes you think that this small child might still be alive?. Do you think that every missing child is dead? Do you think that every missing child is dead by the hands of their parents? Do you even think about what you appear to think?
Do you ever think of actually directing your whine at someone specifically ?
-
As Albertini is so set on the premise that "the McCanns have not proved their innocence," perhaps he could state what, in his opinion, they would now have to do remedy this.
Should Kate be forced to answer the 48 questions, despite their being couched in the "have you stopped beating you wife" mode?
What about a reconstruction? Apart from the tapas 9, who else should take part; how would the exact conditions be replicated; how many variations should be tried out?
How would any of this ascertain what happened to Madeleine, where she is now (alive or dead), who abducted her?
-
As Albertini is so set on the premise that "the McCanns have not proved their innocence," perhaps he could state what, in his opinion, they would now have to do remedy this.
Should Kate be forced to answer the 48 questions, despite their being couched in the "have you stopped beating you wife" mode?
What about a reconstruction? Apart from the tapas 9, who else should take part; how would the exact conditions be replicated; how many variations should be tried out?
How would any of this ascertain what happened to Madeleine, where she is now (alive or dead), who abducted her?
To be accurate it is the AG's and Leicestershire Police's contention not mine.
In terms of what i think they should do?
Well first thing's first i am entirely comfortable at this stage that the Yard are investigating abduction scenarios.
Let them got on with it and get through these 38 persons of interest.
Then once that is done and if (as i suspect) it leads nowhere the way forward is pretty clear.
The 9 have to submit themselves unreservedly and individually for more in depth questioning about their actions and movements without the contraints of the rogatory framework.
After all as Menezez said in Court the group were lying about their checking routines.
The fundamental question remains for me were they lying to simply cover the neglect charges or to hide something more sinister?
Also as i have posted previously the group killed the investigation with the refusal to perform the reconstruction.
Why would they they seek to kill the investigation at the point at which it was reconstructing their statements? Why did they decide that not performing the actions of their statements was more important that the investigation remaining open into the missing child?
That's a big decision to make so the reasons to them must have been compelling. What were those reasons?
Then we come on to Jane Tanner. Once and for all a definite answer on the night in the surveilence van. If as she states in the Rogatory "she just thought (Murat) it was him (bundleman)" then there are serious repercussions regarding her testimony.
I would like to see a reconstruction done but i think the likelihood is very slim.
The bottom line is all roads, certainly from the files, lead back to the group, their statements and actions. Until all those issues are cleared up my opinion is that this case cannot move forward.
-
And what about the 48 questions? If Kate now answers them, could they "prove her innocence?
-
And what about the 48 questions? If Kate now answers them, could they "prove her innocence?
Depends on the answers given when viewed against other evidence gathered.
-
Depends on the answers given when viewed against other evidence gathered.
What, like "do you work in the daytime"? @)(++(*
And question 45, amongst others, is now obsolete as there was no cadaver odour signalled in the car. I understand that Eddie wasn't even put into the car.
-
What, like "do you work in the daytime"? @)(++(*
And question 45, amongst others, is now obsolete as there was no cadaver odour signalled in the car. I understand that Eddie wasn't even put into the car.
So what was problem in answering them then?
-
So what was problem in answering them then?
I would imagine she was advised by her lawyer not to. Question 47 gives you a hint of the PJ's agenda. I've reproduced it below:
Confronted with the result of the sample of Madeleine's DNA, whose analysis was carried out by a British laboratory, found behind the sofa and in the boot of the vehicle, as previously described, Kate McCann said she could not explain anything more than she already had.
-
I would imagine she was advised by her lawyer not to. Question 47 gives you a hint of the PJ's agenda. I've reproduced it below:
Confronted with the result of the sample of Madeleine's DNA, whose analysis was carried out by a British laboratory, found behind the sofa and in the boot of the vehicle, as previously described, Kate McCann said she could not explain anything more than she already had.
She was advised by her lawyer not to answer the question "whether she worked in the daytime"? Lol, ok.
-
She was advised by her lawyer not to answer the question "whether she worked in the daytime"? Lol, ok.
I would imagine that her lawyer would have advised her not to answer anything. Had I been in Kate McCann's shoes, I would also have taken my lawyer's advice. Especially as some of the questions contain blatant falsehoods.
-
I would imagine that her lawyer would have advised her not to answer anything. Had I been in Kate McCann's shoes, I would also have taken my lawyer's advice. Especially as some of the questions contain blatant falsehoods.
Agreed. It's obvious her Lawyer advised her not to answer ANY questions. That is normal advice. His duty was to act in the best interests of his client - and if he had the slightest inkling that this interview was not about finding Madeleine but was purely an attempt to find a reason to arrest Kate - then his advice was correct.
The reason Kate didn't answer the questions was not because she couldn't or didn't want to - it was because she followed her Lawyers advice. As he was au fait with Portuguese law and she wasn't - she did the right thing.
Many of the questions she would have answered previously anyway - unless we are being asked to believe that this was the first time the PJ had asked her what happened when she went into 5A to do her check at 10.00p.m on the 3rd May. Considering she was interviewed for 11 hours only the day before when she was a 'witness' and so was obliged by law to answer questions, one wonders why they didn't ask her many of the questions at that interview.
-
Consider these two questions:
40. Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?
41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?
If she'd answered "yes" to both of them, she would have had to explain why, particularly to quest. 41, as suspicion on her would have increased 100-fold. Though unusual, there are very good reasons for some parents to relinquish custody of their children, but such a consideration would have been highly suspect when that child had disappeared in mysterious circumstances.
If she'd answered "no," then it would have been considered that she was lying and the onus would have been back on the police to find evidence of this. So no matter how she had answered this question - yes or no - she could not have "proved her innocence;" in fact, she'd have looked more guilty than ever.
-
Agreed. It's obvious her Lawyer advised her not to answer ANY questions. That is normal advice. His duty was to act in the best interests of his client - and if he had the slightest inkling that this interview was not about finding Madeleine but was purely an attempt to find a reason to arrest Kate - then his advice was correct.
The reason Kate didn't answer the questions was not because she couldn't or didn't want to - it was because she followed her Lawyers advice. As he was au fait with Portuguese law and she wasn't - she did the right thing.
Many of the questions she would have answered previously anyway - unless we are being asked to believe that this was the first time the PJ had asked her what happened when she went into 5A to do her check at 10.00p.m on the 3rd May. Considering she was interviewed for 11 hours only the day before when she was a 'witness' and so was obliged by law to answer questions, one wonders why they didn't ask her many of the questions at that interview.
Agreed - and I would also say that she would have already answered some of those questions already and your point about why did the PJ not ask her when she was still a witness is an excellent one.
-
To be accurate it is the AG's and Leicestershire Police's contention not mine.
In terms of what i think they should do?
Well first thing's first i am entirely comfortable at this stage that the Yard are investigating abduction scenarios.
Let them got on with it and get through these 38 persons of interest.
Then once that is done and if (as i suspect) it leads nowhere the way forward is pretty clear.
The 9 have to submit themselves unreservedly and individually for more in depth questioning about their actions and movements without the contraints of the rogatory framework.
After all as Menezez said in Court the group were lying about their checking routines.
The fundamental question remains for me were they lying to simply cover the neglect charges or to hide something more sinister?
Also as i have posted previously the group killed the investigation with the refusal to perform the reconstruction.
Why would they they seek to kill the investigation at the point at which it was reconstructing their statements? Why did they decide that not performing the actions of their statements was more important that the investigation remaining open into the missing child?
That's a big decision to make so the reasons to them must have been compelling. What were those reasons?
Then we come on to Jane Tanner. Once and for all a definite answer on the night in the surveilence van. If as she states in the Rogatory "she just thought (Murat) it was him (bundleman)" then there are serious repercussions regarding her testimony.
I would like to see a reconstruction done but i think the likelihood is very slim.
The bottom line is all roads, certainly from the files, lead back to the group, their statements and actions. Until all those issues are cleared up my opinion is that this case cannot move forward.
Jane Tanner never identified Murat as the man she saw at any time.
Her final words on Murat from her rog. statement:
4078 “You don’t feel it was the same person?”
Reply “No, I don’t, no”.
That seems pretty definite to me.
-
Jane Tanner never identified Murat as the man she saw at any time.
Her final words on Murat from her rog. statement:
4078 “You don’t feel it was the same person?”
Reply “No, I don’t, no”.
That seems pretty definite to me.
Really?
Reply “Erm well I think it’s when I’d done the, well I did the surveillance and then the next day after that, I think it came on Sky News about whether they were searching, what the MURAT’s house, so that’s Rachel sort of came running down at that point and sort of said, have you seen this blah, blah and at this point, nobody knew that I’d done the surveillance cos the Portuguese Police were very adamant that I shouldn’t tell anybody and I didn’t tell anybody for days actually, I didn’t even tell them then that it was actually, that I’d done it, I mean it was a couple of days afterwards. So Rachel came down and sort of said, oh I saw him blah, blah, blah and then I think Russell, I can’t remember who else but then somebody else said oh they, they saw him and etc., so at that point it was, I rang Bob SMALL cos I’d got, I’d got his number from the day before for them and you know, they sort of, you know to say, oh is this, is this relevant and also I wanted to tell him that I’d seen him on the way to the doing the surveillance as well yeah just for that, so I think it’s just to make the point really that I think at that point, they didn’t know that Robert MURAT said he wasn’t there on the night”.
4078 “Right”.
Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”.
-
Jane Tanner never identified Murat as the man she saw at any time.
Her final words on Murat from her rog. statement:
4078 “You don’t feel it was the same person?”
Reply “No, I don’t, no”.
That seems pretty definite to me.
Also, that question is not the same question as "Did you on the night you were in the van identify Murat as the man you saw?".
She was being asked in 2008 if the Murat was the same man she saw that night in the van, not if in 2008 she thought it was Murat (when it was clear Murat was not the man).
Her answer there is to a different question than "did you identify Murat in the van that night".
My quoted reponse from Tanner's Rog statement is specifcially in relation to the events of the night of the van operation.
-
You're trying to argue that black is white! Tanner did not identify Murat. As Benice has shown:
4078 “You don’t feel it was the same person?”
Reply “No, I don’t, no”.
-
You're trying to argue that black is white! Tanner did not identify Murat. As Benice has shown:
4078 “You don’t feel it was the same person?”
Reply “No, I don’t, no”.
Nope.
She is being asked in 2008 if she does not feel it was the same person (then in 2008), when it was clear to everyone it wasn't Murat.
That's not the same question as being asked if she positively ID'd Murat on that night in 2007 in the van.
Her answer to the specifics of the van episode was to say
"But i just thought it was".
How can you "just think it was" the suspected abductor if you have given a definite NO in the surveillance operation?
You can only "just think it was him" if you said on that night that it was him and now (or then in 2008) think it wasn't.
-
Considering she was interviewed for 11 hours only the day before when she was a 'witness' and so was obliged by law to answer questions, one wonders why they didn't ask her many of the questions at that interview.
You still wonder why, Benice, or do you pretend it for the sake of your argument?
-
You are just twisting her words - or their meaning - to suit your agenda. The simple fact is that she DID NOT identify Murat, no matter how much you might wish she had.
-
Please don't do this. The Questions were asked many months after Madeleine disappeared, and were posed simply to implicate her parents. There was not one single question that could have helped to find Madeleine.
And of course, if you had actually read The Questions, then you would know that Kate had already answered most of them on the previous day.
I can hardly believe that you are doing this, unless you believe that we are all half a shilling worth of six pence. Or unless you think that this will add to the debate. It won't for me because it doesn't even make sense. But then you know that.
Excuse me but the Portuguese cops had a job to do and that was to get to the truth.
Kate McCann chose to obstruct them out of a sense of 'self preservation'. I agree on one thing though and that is that her refusal to cooperate with the police didn't help find Madeleine!!
-
So what was problem in answering them then?
The problem in answering them is that the PJ would then have asked more questions. you must know this method of wearing a suspect down. kate had already answered about 19 hrs of questions. I think her solicitor felt enough was enough and the only way to stop it was to stop answering questions . the PJ then had a choice, charge or release.
-
That poor guy Murat has had his life destroyed because those stupid bitches identified him as sneaking around the resort on the night Madeleine disappeared. It was they who stuck him in it, not the cops. Maybe it is they who should have been forced to.pay compensation to him for the damage they did.
-
Ms Tanner thought then (in 2007) it could be him, but one year later for reasons her rich English (they sort of, you know to say, oh is this, is this relevant and also I wanted to tell him that I’d seen him on the way to the doing the surveillance as well yeah just for that, so I think it’s just to make the point really that I think at that point) turns rather opaque, she thinks it was not. She changed her mind, why not ?
-
Tanner 'I rang Bob SMALL cos I’d got, I’d got his number from the day before for them and you know, they sort of, you know to say, oh is this, is this relevant'
Got his number for who ? To say what was relevant ?
Her friends weren't supposed to know about Tanner's contact with Bob Small so why, if it is them she is talking about, would they ask her specifically to get his number and what was being checked the day before to see if it was relevant ? Not Murat's presence surely because they had just revealed they had allegedly seen him ?
-
That poor guy Murat has had his life destroyed because those stupid bitches identified him as sneaking around the resort on the night Madeleine disappeared. It was they who stuck him in it, not the cops. Maybe it is they who should have been forced to.pay compensation to him for the damage they did.
Do you believe Murat was there Angelo, and if not why did several members of the group lie ?
-
That poor guy Murat has had his life destroyed because those stupid bitches identified him as sneaking around the resort on the night Madeleine disappeared. It was they who stuck him in it, not the cops. Maybe it is they who should have been forced to.pay compensation to him for the damage they did.
I'm glad you reckon this, Angelo. The fact he got a financial compensation by no way erases assertions stated without any doubt (except for Mr O'Brian).
I've never seen any kind of public apologies, have you ?
-
Really?
Reply “Erm well I think it’s when I’d done the, well I did the surveillance and then the next day after that, I think it came on Sky News about whether they were searching, what the MURAT’s house, so that’s Rachel sort of came running down at that point and sort of said, have you seen this blah, blah and at this point, nobody knew that I’d done the surveillance cos the Portuguese Police were very adamant that I shouldn’t tell anybody and I didn’t tell anybody for days actually, I didn’t even tell them then that it was actually, that I’d done it, I mean it was a couple of days afterwards. So Rachel came down and sort of said, oh I saw him blah, blah, blah and then I think Russell, I can’t remember who else but then somebody else said oh they, they saw him and etc., so at that point it was, I rang Bob SMALL cos I’d got, I’d got his number from the day before for them and you know, they sort of, you know to say, oh is this, is this relevant and also I wanted to tell him that I’d seen him on the way to the doing the surveillance as well yeah just for that, so I think it’s just to make the point really that I think at that point, they didn’t know that Robert MURAT said he wasn’t there on the night”.
4078 “Right”.
Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”. 4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”.
You've taken that comment out of context. They were talking about the others seeing Murat on the 3rd and that comment was in relation to that conversation.
Jane's immediate comment before that was''I don't think it was him that I saw''. So it makes no sense for her to contradict herself in the next sentence.
If the interviewing police officer thought that comment was Jane saying she thought Murat was the man she saw carrying away a child - then the line of questioning immediately following would have reflected that - and in some depth too. The fact that it didn't should tell you that you've drawn the wrong conclusions from the comment.
The only person who has claimed JT identified Murat as the abductor is Amaral - and that was a downright lie.
-
Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”.
So can I get this straight then. Is she saying that she just thought it was him but now thinks it isn't??? 8-)(--)
-
Appears to me she is now just going with the flow....path of least resistance and all that. She obviously had her suspicions at one stage for whatever reason but clearly also indicated that he wasn't bundleman.
-
Do you believe Murat was there Angelo, and if not why did several members of the group lie ?
Most certainly not and he has paid a hefty price because of the malicious insinuations made against him. He wouldn't have offered his services for free the very same morning if he had been involved.
-
Most certainly not and he has paid a hefty price because of the malicious insinuations made against him. He wouldn't have offered his services for free the very same morning if he had been involved.
So why do you think O'Brien, Payne and Oldfield lied ?
-
So why do you think O'Brien, Payne and Oldfield lied ?
Don't forget Sylvia Baptista, did she lie too?.
-
Most certainly not and he has paid a hefty price because of the malicious insinuations made against him. He wouldn't have offered his services for free the very same morning if he had been involved.
No-one made malicious insinuations IMO. Some people - and not just the three from the group, genuinely thought they saw him there.
IMO it was either a case of mistaken identity or when he realised that the PJ were gunning for him he panicked and said he wasn't there at all rather than AFTER he heard the sirens going off.
I don't think Murat had anything to do with Madeleine's abduction and I believe his mother also knew that it was not possible for him to have had a part in it because he was with her up until they heard the sirens.
This is pure speculation on my part - but I can imagine that if a mother knew for definite - by the evidence of her own eyes, that her son was with her at the time the abduction took place and she also knew all about the PJ 'robust' interviewing techniques, and her son told her that he had got scared and told the police he was in the house all night, then she might just agree to back him up on that. From her POV she would not be interfering with the case in fact she would be removing a person whom she knew to be innocent from the equation.
It's clear that Mrs Murat did know all about the fear of locals to contact the police because IIRC that's why she set up a table for them to anonymously leave any information.
Those from the group who were sure they saw him on the night of the 3rd did not back down when they had a face to face meeting with him over this. That means they were prepared to look him in the eye and say 'I saw you there'.
-
So why do you think O'Brien, Payne and Oldfield lied ?
I never said they lied. Remember there was another guy who looked like him who tended to be around the resort.
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_04/MuratSymingtonSolar_468x385.jpg)
Lookalikes: Robert Murat (left) and Angus Symington (right) are the same build and height, both British and both working in property in Praia da Luz.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1606.0
-
No-one made malicious insinuations IMO. Some people - and not just the three from the group, genuinely thought they saw him there.
IMO it was either a case of mistaken identity or when he realised that the PJ were gunning for him he panicked and said he wasn't there at all rather than AFTER he heard the sirens going off.
I don't think Murat had anything to do with Madeleine's abduction and I believe his mother also knew that it was not possible for him to have had a part in it because he was with her up until they heard the sirens.
This is pure speculation on my part - but I can imagine that if a mother knew for definite - by the evidence of her own eyes, that her son was with her at the time the abduction took place and she also knew all about the PJ 'robust' interviewing techniques, and her son told her that he had got scared and told the police he was in the house all night, then she might just agree to back him up on that. From her POV she would not be interfering with the case in fact she would be removing a person whom she knew to be innocent from the equation.
It's clear that Mrs Murat did know all about the fear of locals to contact the police because IIRC that's why she set up a table for them to anonymously leave any information.
Those from the group who were sure they saw him on the night of the 3rd did not back down when they had a face to face meeting with him over this. That means they were prepared to look him in the eye and say 'I saw you there'.
Yes, didn't Amaral tell him, he would get him?
One little niggle I have, is, Murat lives in a seperate house to his mother, so how would she know his every move?
-
I never said they lied. Remember there was another guy who looked like him who tended to be around the resort.
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_04/MuratSymingtonSolar_468x385.jpg)
Lookalikes: Robert Murat (left) and Angus Symington (right) are the same build and height, both British and both working in property in Praia da Luz.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1606.0
That is Murats cousin, Angelo!
-
I never said they lied. Remember there was another guy who looked like him who tended to be around the resort.
When they confirmed they saw him they knew he denied being there. They should have been careful before repeating it was him. But they had the advantage of the number : three against one, isn't it ? How would you qualify their insistence without expressing a doubt ?
-
David Payne was another 'dead-ringer' look-alike for Robert Murat.
-
I never said they lied. Remember there was another guy who looked like him who tended to be around the resort.
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_04/MuratSymingtonSolar_468x385.jpg)
Lookalikes: Robert Murat (left) and Angus Symington (right) are the same build and height, both British and both working in property in Praia da Luz.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1606.0
It cant have been a case of mistaken identity if what they said in their statements was true, seeing as two of them, Fiona and Rachel said Murat introduced himself by name and the other, Russell said he saw and spoke to him that night and approached him later or the next morning to get his phone number put on his mobile.
ETA Ferryman Murat looks nothing like Payne, he (DP) has a very receding hairline and if he (DP) looks like anyone its more John Hill, the Ocean Club manager. But that doesnt matter for the reason above, provided the T3 were telling the truth which is a bit hard to believe seeing as all the GNR that they reckon were either with /speaking to Murat or near Murat and the other people there who he alledgedly translated for that night, and people who actually knew him, none of these made any mention of anything like this
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/john-hill.jpg)
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Tappas9/David-Payne.jpg)
-
No-one made malicious insinuations IMO. Some people - and not just the three from the group, genuinely thought they saw him there.
"malicious" is a gentle word and "genuinely" is acceptable for the first time, not the second !
Silvia B wasn't sure. So it was just the three of them, as they insisted, who were confronted to Mr Murat ! They remained on their position. Their conscience wasn't even disturbed... Weird individuals.
-
Yes, didn't Amaral tell him, he would get him?
One little niggle I have, is, Murat lives in a seperate house to his mother, so how would she know his every move?
So you can't contemplate O'Brien, Payne and Oldfield lying but you can insinuate that Murat and his mother were.
-
This is pure speculation on my part - but I can imagine that if a mother knew for definite - by the evidence of her own eyes, that her son was with her at the time the abduction took place and she also knew all about the PJ 'robust' interviewing techniques, and her son told her that he had got scared and told the police he was in the house all night, then she might just agree to back him up on that. From her POV she would not be interfering with the case in fact she would be removing a person whom she knew to be innocent from the equation.
Would you so easily speculate a similar kind of protection given for the good cause in respect of Ms Tanner ? Could you imagine she erased the face of the carrier because that face looked like Mr McCann's one and she just couldn't imagine Mr McCann abducting his own child ?
The good cause here would be to prevent the police from being misled.
So she 1) erases the face, 2) chooses for her (real) sighting a time when Mr McCann was chatting with an independent witness and 3) changes the direction from East to West into West to East.
-
You've taken that comment out of context. They were talking about the others seeing Murat on the 3rd and that comment was in relation to that conversation.
Jane's immediate comment before that was''I don't think it was him that I saw''. So it makes no sense for her to contradict herself in the next sentence.
If the interviewing police officer thought that comment was Jane saying she thought Murat was the man she saw carrying away a child - then the line of questioning immediately following would have reflected that - and in some depth too. The fact that it didn't should tell you that you've drawn the wrong conclusions from the comment.
The only person who has claimed JT identified Murat as the abductor is Amaral - and that was a downright lie.
So what did she mean by, *I just thought that it was?*
Must admit its very hard to make head or tail what she is talking about from that rogatory script. She is obviously saying at some stage she thought it was him, is she referring to him being there that night? like the others had? Or is she referring to him as the man she saw with a child?
And do you think Mr Amaral when writing about the van surveillance exercise with Bob Small, he totally fabricated the words *she recognised him from the way he walked*? Or was it a total misunderstanding?
-
So you can't contemplate O'Brien, Payne and Oldfield lying but you can insinuate that Murat and his mother were.
Where have I insinuated Murat and his mother lied?
Yes, didn't Amaral tell him, he would get him?
One little niggle I have, is, Murat lives in a seperate house to his mother, so how would she know his every move?
They don't live in the same house, hows that a lie?
-
So what did she mean by, *I just thought that it was?*
Must admit its very hard to make head or tail what she is talking about from that rogatory script. She is obviously saying at some stage she thought it was him, is she referring to him being there that night? like the others had? Or is she referring to him as the man she saw with a child?
And do you think Mr Amaral when writing about the van surveillance exercise with Bob Small, he totally fabricated the words *she recognised him from the way he walked*?
She hardly could have recognised him by a face she had erased.
The way he walked... The way he carried..
-
She hardly could have recognised him by a face she had erased.
The way he walked... The way he carried..
Good point Anne.
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQS1k_4rG3AVETQ_JVxiMkRI-cjuSzP2PXWj5GRiIoeGfAzdnLV)
This guy spent some time near the G5, spoke fluent English and Portuguese and used glasses.
-
She hardly could have recognised him by a face she had erased.
The way he walked... The way he carried..
4078 “Right. And when you first became aware of this man holding the child, if you can try and picture in your mind, as I am sure you have done over and over again, and start from the top of his head and work your way down and tell me what he looked like?”
Reply “You see this is where now I’m really, I don’t even know whether it’s worth doing this, because there’s been so much, since then I’ve had the, when they took me round for the surveillance to look at, and I’m guessing now it’s MURAT they wanted me to look at and, you know, all the other bits and bobs, I really don’t know, but I think I’d prefer just to stick with what I said in my original statement, in terms of the, because even, I mean, this is coming back to the sketch, even when I did the sketch, by that stage, you know, things were, were murky, I needed to that sketch that first night, I mean, they took me in to do the sketch, but they only had, erm, front facing software, so you know, and at that point I said, you know, is there, can I do, because the clothes and everything was the thing was the thing that was the most in my mind then and I can remember saying to the chap I met on the stairs earlier, I think it’s (inaudible), is it?”
4078 “Yeah”.
Reply “Because he took me in the car back and forth and I can remember saying to him on the way back ‘Look, is there a way I can do a sketch with clothes, you know, do you have software or any way that I can do a sketch of the clothes or a side, a side view’. And he sort of said ‘No, we don’t have that feasible, you know, feasibility or availability’. And I said then ‘Can I do that when I go back to the UK’, you know, because at that point it was in my head and it would have been, and they were the bits that I think would have been recognisable to get down on paper. But at that point it was like ‘Oh no, we can’t do that, we don’t work in that way’. Which I can understand and, you know, now obviously I think ‘Oh I should have pushed and really pushed’, but at that point you rely on, you don’t, you know, you’re just in such shock and you just think ‘Okay that’s the way things do’, but”
4078 “Yeah”.
Reply “But, I mean, I think, so the things that I’m happy, that are still in my head, that still stick in my head is the hair and it was longer, it was sort of longish and, erm, I don’t know how to (inaudible), but each, each, almost the hair was long, the bits of hair were long, so it was long into the neck, you know, sort of in, when people have a number one or whatever at the back and it’s shaved, not shaved up, but, you know, sort of layered up, this was more long into the neck, so sort of long, each, each individual hair was long, erm, and dark, it was sort of quite dark and glossy, that sticks in my head. And sort of the dark, dark clothes and quite billowy, not billowy clothes, but quite baggy, sort of they seemed, erm, not ill fitting but quite baggy clothes, like not jeans, but trousers sort of not Chinos but not Farrahs either, but sort of baggy’ish sort of ill fitting more than. And they’re the bits that I remember quite vividly sort of”.
-
So what did she mean by, *I just thought that it was?*
Must admit its very hard to make head or tail what she is talking about from that rogatory script. She is obviously saying at some stage she thought it was him, is she referring to him being there that night? like the others had? Or is she referring to him as the man she saw with a child?
And do you think Mr Amaral when writing about the van surveillance exercise with Bob Small, he totally fabricated the words *she recognised him from the way he walked*? Or was it a total misunderstanding?
IMHO Red, I think its possible she hadn't actually finished saying what she going to say before the police officer started talking again - but we can't tell that from the typed statement. She might have been going to say for instance ''I just thought that it was.... important that I told Bob Small..'' or even ''I just thought it was ...possible that it might have been Murat if the others saw him and he was now on TV' ' but that's pure guesswork on my part.
I agree it's not easy to follow the verbatim statements, because we can't see their facial expressions or hear the intonation of their voices, and without that it's easy to get the wrong idea. However, the police officer interviewing her wouldn't have that problem and I'm sure that if she thought Jane Tanner was saying she thought Murat was the man she saw, then she would undoubtedly have questioned her further about that. But she didn't - she carried on talking about the others seeing Murat.
Yes I'm sure Amaral lied. If Jane Tanner had identified Murat - then she would have immediately been taken to the police station to make a signed statement. The policemen with her would not have been ringing Amaral to ask if she needed to go in to sign anything - they would already know the answer to that question. They would be ringing to say she'd positively identified him and they were bringing her in. No way if she HAD identified Murat as the abductor would she have been told she didn't need to sign anything, and that she could go home.
I've never been sure whether Bob Small was actually in the van with her. I'm not saying he wasn't - I've just never personally seen anything in the files to say that he was.
-
Would you so easily speculate a similar kind of protection given for the good cause in respect of Ms Tanner ? Could you imagine she erased the face of the carrier because that face looked like Mr McCann's one and she just couldn't imagine Mr McCann abducting his own child ?
The good cause here would be to prevent the police from being misled.
So she 1) erases the face, 2) chooses for her (real) sighting a time when Mr McCann was chatting with an independent witness and 3) changes the direction from East to West into West to East.
No I don't. I do believe that a mother would stretch the truth a little for her own son, particularly if knew he was innocent and she feared for his wellbeing at the hands of the PJ. I don't believe JT would lie and take such a dangerous risk with her own and her family's future, for someone she hardly knew and was not in any way close to.
-
Yes, didn't Amaral tell him, he would get him?
One little niggle I have, is, Murat lives in a seperate house to his mother, so how would she know his every move?
But wasn't she his alibi for that night - IIRC she said he was sitting in her kitchen? (I might have got that bit wrong)
-
Where have I insinuated Murat and his mother lied?
They don't live in the same house, hows that a lie?
This is what Jenny Murat says about that night :
'--- Asked, she explains that while they were talking in the kitchen, she is not able to say when, she recalls having heard a siren ringing at least once. Although not usual, she also did not "connect" because it could possibly have been an ambulance. (She recalls that sometimes, when the wind blows in a certain direction, it is possible to hear in the house sirens of police cars or ambulances that pass on the EN125).
--- Questioned, she says that during that night she also heard no noise or strange movements of people and also no one knocked on the door to ask or to request help to find the missing girl.
---Asked, she assures that her son Robert did not leave the house that night. Furthermore, she says that he usually gets up first. On that day she does not remember if that was what happened.'
He was in his mother's house all night, that is what she categorically stated in her statement, so implying that Robert may have been somewhere else is indeed casting doubt upon the veracity of her statement.
Bottom line is either Robert and his mother are lying or Oldfield, Payne and O'Brien are. There is no other option.
-
No I don't. I do believe that a mother would stretch the truth a little for her own son, particularly if knew he was innocent and she feared for his wellbeing at the hands of the PJ. I don't believe JT would lie and take such a dangerous risk with her own and her family's future, for someone she hardly knew and was not in any way close to.
Your point about Jane Tanner is something that I have tried again and again to get my head round and just cannot for the life of me see how someone who didn't know the McCanns and wasn't close to would risk serious charges by participating in a cover up.
I can't see any of the holiday party risking serious charges to cover up a child's death.
-
This is what Jenny Murat says about that night :
'--- Asked, she explains that while they were talking in the kitchen, she is not able to say when, she recalls having heard a siren ringing at least once. Although not usual, she also did not "connect" because it could possibly have been an ambulance. (She recalls that sometimes, when the wind blows in a certain direction, it is possible to hear in the house sirens of police cars or ambulances that pass on the EN125).
--- Questioned, she says that during that night she also heard no noise or strange movements of people and also no one knocked on the door to ask or to request help to find the missing girl.
---Asked, she assures that her son Robert did not leave the house that night. Furthermore, she says that he usually gets up first. On that day she does not remember if that was what happened.'
He was in his mother's house all night, that is what she categorically stated in her statement, so implying that Robert may have been somewhere else is indeed casting doubt upon the veracity of her statement.
Bottom line is either Robert and his mother are lying or Oldfield, Payne and O'Brien are. There is no other option.
Well you tell me, who's lying 8-)(--)
2-Processo Vol II pages 442 to 447
Relating to R.J.Q.E.Murat it was determined:
1. he lives at Casa Liliana ..... Lagos;
2. at the same address but in a separate house lives his mother J.A.Murat;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm
-
This is what Jenny Murat says about that night :
'--- Asked, she explains that while they were talking in the kitchen, she is not able to say when, she recalls having heard a siren ringing at least once. Although not usual, she also did not "connect" because it could possibly have been an ambulance. (She recalls that sometimes, when the wind blows in a certain direction, it is possible to hear in the house sirens of police cars or ambulances that pass on the EN125).
--- Questioned, she says that during that night she also heard no noise or strange movements of people and also no one knocked on the door to ask or to request help to find the missing girl.
---Asked, she assures that her son Robert did not leave the house that night. Furthermore, she says that he usually gets up first. On that day she does not remember if that was what happened.'
He was in his mother's house all night, that is what she categorically stated in her statement, so implying that Robert may have been somewhere else is indeed casting doubt upon the veracity of her statement.
Bottom line is either Robert and his mother are lying or Oldfield, Payne and O'Brien are. There is no other option.
Thanks for that info. Faith.
-
You are just twisting her words - or their meaning - to suit your agenda. The simple fact is that she DID NOT identify Murat, no matter how much you might wish she had.
You've taken that comment out of context. They were talking about the others seeing Murat on the 3rd and that comment was in relation to that conversation.
Jane's immediate comment before that was''I don't think it was him that I saw''. So it makes no sense for her to contradict herself in the next sentence.
If the interviewing police officer thought that comment was Jane saying she thought Murat was the man she saw carrying away a child - then the line of questioning immediately following would have reflected that - and in some depth too. The fact that it didn't should tell you that you've drawn the wrong conclusions from the comment.
The only person who has claimed JT identified Murat as the abductor is Amaral - and that was a downright lie.
I am not twisting anything. I am looking at and explaining precisely what Ms Tanner has actually said.
It is perfectly obvious what she is saying when you consider the tense she uses in the verb "think".
"Think" is present tense, in other words, as she is sat there giving that Rogatory statement in 2008 she does not think it was him now.
"Thought" is past tense, in other words at some point in the past, and given the question she answered was related to the van episode episode, it is safe to conclude that she thought then on that night in 2007 in what it was him.
So through the use of her words if she thought it was him when she was in the van she identified him. One thing is for sure Leicestershire Police will have a record of it.
Chinagirl, not only have you failed to rebut my explanation of her comments, you have failed to provide any explanation whatsoever of this apparent contradiction in Ms Tanner's words.
Benice if Amaral was wrong why did Ms Tanner, Bob Small Or Leciestershire Police never seek to challenge his words?
To both of you, it is not me who is desperate to twist her words. It is actually the supporters of the McCann's who have bet the ranch on Ms Tanner's sighting being genuine that any (more) damage to her credibility blows her sighting out of the water and the abduction with it.
-
Appears to me she is now just going with the flow....path of least resistance and all that. She obviously had her suspicions at one stage for whatever reason but clearly also indicated that he wasn't bundleman.
Or you could conclude that on that night in May 2007 in the van she identified him as bundleman, but then in 2008 when giving the Rogatory statement and it was obvious it wasn't him she said she didn't think it was him.
What does that say about her credibility as a witness when you add the fact that she could see this abductor and what he, and the child he was carrying was wearing, but she said she walked past Gerry & Jez who were actually on the other side of the road.
Given she is the only witness to the abduction scenario her testimony is incredibly unreliable.
-
So can I get this straight then. Is she saying that she just thought it was him but now thinks it isn't??? 8-)(--)
That's precisely what it means. I have explained how she skirted around it in the Rogatory interviews because she knew there was a record of that surveilience van episode (so far unreleased), so she could not outright deny she had ID'd him in the van, but what she said in the Rogatory interviews was more centred on the fact that she didn't think it was him now (or in 2008 when the rogatories were recorded).
-
Your point about Jane Tanner is something that I have tried again and again to get my head round and just cannot for the life of me see how someone who didn't know the McCanns and wasn't close to would risk serious charges by participating in a cover up.
I can't see any of the holiday party risking serious charges to cover up a child's death.
Well one thing i have thought odd was that the night Madeleine disappeared wasn't Jane Tanner's child ill?
Could it perhaps be that if sedation of some kind was used on the McCann children it was also used on Ms Tanner's child?
Just strikes me as too much of a coincidence that her child was ill at around the same time Madeleine disappeared.
-
Your point about Jane Tanner is something that I have tried again and again to get my head round and just cannot for the life of me see how someone who didn't know the McCanns and wasn't close to would risk serious charges by participating in a cover up.
I can't see any of the holiday party risking serious charges to cover up a child's death.
Read my post, Rachel ! I didn't speak of cover up.
-
Well one thing i have thought odd was that the night Madeleine disappeared wasn't Jane Tanner's child ill?
Could it perhaps be that if sedation of some kind was used on the McCann children it was also used on Ms Tanner's child?
Just strikes me as too much of a coincidence that her child was ill at around the same time Madeleine disappeared.
I think this child wasn't well, that explains why her father took longer to arrive at the Tapas, that would explain also that Mr O'Brien left around 5 minutes after Ms Tanner's return.
On 4 families, 2 seem to have been attacked by some virus.
-
Read my post, Rachel ! I didn't speak of cover up.
I was replying to Benice, Anne.
-
I think this child wasn't well, that explains why her father took longer to arrive at the Tapas, that would explain also that Mr O'Brien left around 5 minutes after Ms Tanner's return.
On 4 families, 2 seem to have been attacked by some virus.
Or maybe, just maybe, the O'Brien child was given the same sedation as the McCann's child?
-
Well one thing i have thought odd was that the night Madeleine disappeared wasn't Jane Tanner's child ill?
Could it perhaps be that if sedation of some kind was used on the McCann children it was also used on Ms Tanner's child?
Just strikes me as too much of a coincidence that her child was ill at around the same time Madeleine disappeared.
In my opinion, none of the children were sedated. However, even if they were, I just can't see people agreeing to lie to cover up the death of a 3 year old child. I think that people would just want to do the decent thing. Just my opinion.
-
In my opinion, none of the children were sedated. However, even if they were, I just can't see people agreeing to lie to cover up the death of a 3 year old child. I think that people would just want to do the decent thing. Just my opinion.
You would like to think so, wouldn't you? But who can say how other people will react in situations we have never found ourselves in?
You can't apply your own logic and sensibilites to other people and treat it as a fact just because you would not behave in that way.
-
You would like to think so, wouldn't you? But who can say how other people will react in situations we have never found ourselves in?
You can't apply your own logic and sensibilites to other people and treat it as a fact just because you would not behave in that way.
Do you not think someone would have cracked by now? Come on! Some of the holiday party barely knew Kate and Gerry McCann. Why on earth would they risk serious charges and possible custodial sentences to cover up for people they were not that close to?
-
If Jane Tanner had identified Murat - then she would have immediately been taken to the police station to make a signed statement.
No. The van episode was illegal and done only in hope to get a quick indication. The legal way is one or another form of parade.
-
Or maybe, just maybe, the O'Brien child was given the same sedation as the McCann's child?
A doctor sedating his/her child is no crime, since doctors are supposed to be aware of counter effects and what to do if.
-
A doctor sedating his/her child is no crime, since doctors are supposed to be aware of counter effects and what to do if.
Agreed, but what if it went wrong for whatever reason? Made the O'Brien child ill and worse for Madeleine?
It would help explain the collusion between them if there was a shared responsiblity.
-
No. The van episode was illegal and done only in hope to get a quick indication. The legal way is one or another form of parade.
And wasn't it run by Leicestershire Police and not the PJ?
-
Do you not think someone would have cracked by now? Come on! Some of the holiday party barely knew Kate and Gerry McCann. Why on earth would they risk serious charges and possible custodial sentences to cover up for people they were not that close to?
I do not have the answers to that, if i did i would have solved the mystery by now.
It is not beyond the realms of possibilities though is it? It cannot be ruled out as an impossibility.
Why would they have cracked? The Tapas mob have barely been disturbed by it since 2008.
If after these 38 are looked at and if they are eliminated and the Yard then swoop on the 7 who knows if someone will crack then!
-
I do not have the answers to that, if i did i would have solved the mystery by now.
It is not beyond the realms of possibilities though is it? It cannot be ruled out as an impossibility.
Why would they have cracked? The Tapas mob have barely been disturbed by it since 2008.
If after these 38 are looked at and if they are eliminated and the Yard then swoop on the 7 who knows if someone will crack then!
There was newspaper reports that two of the groups wished to amend there statements, and by coincidence the two mentioned were Tanner and O'Brien.
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQS1k_4rG3AVETQ_JVxiMkRI-cjuSzP2PXWj5GRiIoeGfAzdnLV)
This guy spent some time near the G5, spoke fluent English and Portuguese and used glasses.
I can see how he may have been seen instead of Murat,( a local who spoke both languages and probably did help with some translating), by someone who didnt know him, in the dark, flitting around, searching, talking, getting a general fleeting look and then when Murat was in the news on the 15th of May people my have thought *thats the guy* there on that night. i meanhe doesnt look a million miles different. His witness statement tallies with the time the Tapas 3 say they saw *Murat* 23.30/2400 and onwards.......but.....that means they were not telling the truth when they said he introduced himself...
eta
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ADRIAAN_MARAIOS.htm
-
I do not have the answers to that, if i did i would have solved the mystery by now.
It is not beyond the realms of possibilities though is it? It cannot be ruled out as an impossibility.
Why would they have cracked? The Tapas mob have barely been disturbed by it since 2008.
If after these 38 are looked at and if they are eliminated and the Yard then swoop on the 7 who knows if someone will crack then!
First of all, I would imagine that the Yard have already "swooped" on the McCanns and the holiday party. DCI Redwood has already told us that they are not persons of interest.
You used the term "barely disturbed by it"... well I would think that if you really HAD been complicit in the cover up of a child's death then you would be very disturbed indeed by it.
I just cannot see people agreeing to lie, and then not being bothered by their consciences.
-
There was newspaper reports that two of the groups wished to amend there statements, and by coincidence the two mentioned were Tanner and O'Brien.
That may be true, or it may be press spin. I can't see it being true though, as it hasn't led to the McCanns being arrested, has it?
-
IMHO Red, I think its possible she hadn't actually finished saying what she going to say before the police officer started talking again - but we can't tell that from the typed statement. She might have been going to say for instance ''I just thought that it was.... important that I told Bob Small..'' or even ''I just thought it was ...possible that it might have been Murat if the others saw him and he was now on TV' ' but that's pure guesswork on my part.
I agree it's not easy to follow the verbatim statements, because we can't see their facial expressions or hear the intonation of their voices, and without that it's easy to get the wrong idea. However, the police officer interviewing her wouldn't have that problem and I'm sure that if she thought Jane Tanner was saying she thought Murat was the man she saw, then she would undoubtedly have questioned her further about that. But she didn't - she carried on talking about the others seeing Murat.
Yes I'm sure Amaral lied. If Jane Tanner had identified Murat - then she would have immediately been taken to the police station to make a signed statement. The policemen with her would not have been ringing Amaral to ask if she needed to go in to sign anything - they would already know the answer to that question. They would be ringing to say she'd positively identified him and they were bringing her in. No way if she HAD identified Murat as the abductor would she have been told she didn't need to sign anything, and that she could go home.
I've never been sure whether Bob Small was actually in the van with her. I'm not saying he wasn't - I've just never personally seen anything in the files to say that he was.
I dont think her sentence was cut off, its in inverted commas and full stop. And doesnt read disjointedly. She still said I dont think it was... But I thought it was, in the next sentence, I agree with Albertini on this,so agree to differ with you, as to pass it off as potentially being cut off is stretching it a bit, considering how they were treated with kid gloves in their rogatory interviews and allowed to express themselves in full and in as much time as they wanted.
Bob Small took her to the van exercise, whether we was in it or outside no one knows,theres nothng in the files about it at all, perhaps its one of those documents held on the LPs files, as not all their files appear in the PJ ones.
-
That may be true, or it may be press spin. I can't see it being true though, as it hasn't led to the McCanns being arrested, has it?
If it was true, why is it taking so long to do? I see the newspapers are now reliable, funny that @)(++(*
-
If it was true, why is it taking so long to do? I see the newspapers are now reliable, funny that @)(++(*
I think we have been waiting over 5 years now for the McCanns to be arrested on the strength of these statement changes..... @)(++(*
-
I think we have been waiting over 5 years now for the McCanns to be arrested on the strength of these statement changes..... @)(++(*
No one can be arrested if there is no open case and investigation and that has been the case for the last five years.Small detail.
-
No one can be arrested if there is no open case and investigation and that has been the case for the last five years.Small detail.
Come on! The Yard would have been all over it like a rash if someone had changed their statements and those changes had implicated the McCanns!
-
Come on! The Yard would have been all over it like a rash if someone had changed their statements and those changes had implicated the McCanns!
The Yard were not involved in Nov 2007 when this was reported, iirc, and they didnt change their statements,and we dont know what the alledged changes would have been about. I dont know what that article was all about really, but no paper article is 100% devoid of truth, there must have been something to it, your guess is as good as mine though
ps the LP who were involved would not have been all over anyone like a rash, they were assisting the PJ and had no powers of investigation of their own let alone ability to arrest
-
This obsession of the McCanns being arrested is omnipresent among believers. Fear ?
-
The Yard were not involved in Nov 2007 when this was reported, iirc, and they didnt change their statements,and we dont know what the alledged changes would have been about. I dont know what that article was all about really, but no paper article is 100% devoid of truth, there must have been something to it, your guess is as good as mine though
And who said an eventual change would implicate the McCanns ? Ms Tanner had more than one reason to wish to change her sighting in order to make it more plausible. But she likely was advised that it would be even worse.
-
Bob Small took her to the van exercise, whether we was in it or outside no one knows,theres nothng in the files about it at all, perhaps its one of those documents held on the LPs files, as not all their files appear in the PJ ones.
There's nothing in the files because it was illegal. Mr Murat could have protested and he would have won in court.
-
And who said an eventual change would implicate the McCanns ? Ms Tanner had more than one reason to wish to change her sighting in order to make it more plausible. But she likely was advised that it would be even worse.
I can go with that. I think it was around November time rogatory interviews were being talked about so they may have known they were going to be interviewed again in the near future.
-
There's nothing in the files because it was illegal. Mr Murat could have protested and he would have won in court.
Did he not know? How could he have not known? Did they wait for him to cross the top of the road like bundleman on his travels?
-
I can see how he may have been seen instead of Murat,( a local who spoke both languages and probably did help with some translating), by someone who didnt know him, in the dark, flitting around, searching, talking, getting a general fleeting look and then when Murat was in the news on the 15th of May people my have thought *thats the guy* there on that night. i meanhe doesnt look a million miles different. His witness statement tallies with the time the Tapas 3 say they saw *Murat* 23.30/2400 and onwards.......but.....that means they were not telling the truth when they said he introduced himself...
eta
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ADRIAAN_MARAIOS.htm
Men of that age, using glasses, speaking fluent English and Portuguese, and being around on the 3rd of May night after 11pm are very rare. Actually I think there's only Mr Marais, since Mr Murat was elsewhere as activity on his laptop seems to have proved.
-
Did he not know? How could he have not known? Did they wait for him to cross the top of the road like bundleman on his travels?
Mr Murat didn't know he was spied behind a van's glasses. This is illegal.
-
Men of that age, using glasses, speaking fluent English and Portuguese, and being around on the 3rd of May night after 11pm are very rare. Actually I think there's only Mr Marais, since Mr Murat was elsewhere as activity on his laptop seems to have proved.
Thats interesting. If they can prove he was on his computer at any time the tapas members said he was speaking to them,or around, then that would annul what they claimed. But this is so basic, you would think it would have been done already and shown in the files?
-
Mr Murat didn't know he was spied behind a van's glasses. This is illegal.
Oh I see I never knew all this. Thanks.
-
There's nothing in the files because it was illegal. Mr Murat could have protested and he would have won in court.
If it was illegal, why did Amaral set it up, Or stop it going ahead?
-
If it was illegal, why did Amaral set it up, Or stop it going ahead?
He didn't. Bob small and Leicestershire police set it up and were present.
-
Can someone PLEASE educate me.... WHY do you people spend YOUR life discussing other peoples lives ???
Have you anything constructive to add to the debate, willo wisp?
-
Albertini might be right about SY proceeding by successive eliminations. Actually this is how the PJ proceeded. I was looking in GA's book whether he gave the date of Mr Smith's statement taken on the phone, and I found that :
Before (thinking in the eventual concealment of Madeleine's body), we had to exhaust all the leads related to the abduction thesis that had been imposed to us.
-
He didn't. Bob small and Leicestershire police set it up and were present.
So Amaral is a liar?
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.
-
Albertini might be right about SY proceeding by successive eliminations. Actually this is how the PJ proceeded. I was looking in GA's book whether he gave the date of Mr Smith's statement taken on the phone, and I found that :
Before (thinking in the eventual concealment of Madeleine's body), we had to exhaust all the leads related to the abduction thesis that had been imposed to us.
You'd be better off reading Harry Potter than Amaral's book, Anne.
-
Can someone PLEASE educate me.... WHY do you people spend YOUR life discussing other peoples lives ???
I suppose you never discuss or take an interest in any one elses life,whether its your friends or neighbours, the news, cases in the media, real life crime stories,unsolved mysteries,watch tv etc
?>)()<
Edited
-
I am not twisting anything. I am looking at and explaining precisely what Ms Tanner has actually said.
It is perfectly obvious what she is saying when you consider the tense she uses in the verb "think".
"Think" is present tense, in other words, as she is sat there giving that Rogatory statement in 2008 she does not think it was him now.
"Thought" is past tense, in other words at some point in the past, and given the question she answered was related to the van episode episode, it is safe to conclude that she thought then on that night in 2007 in what it was him.
So through the use of her words if she thought it was him when she was in the van she identified him. One thing is for sure Leicestershire Police will have a record of it.
Chinagirl, not only have you failed to rebut my explanation of her comments, you have failed to provide any explanation whatsoever of this apparent contradiction in Ms Tanner's words.
Benice if Amaral was wrong why did Ms Tanner, Bob Small Or Leciestershire Police never seek to challenge his words?
To both of you, it is not me who is desperate to twist her words. It is actually the supporters of the McCann's who have bet the ranch on Ms Tanner's sighting being genuine that any (more) damage to her credibility blows her sighting out of the water and the abduction with it.
If you think JT was telling the police officer that in 2007 she had identified Murat as the abductor, then explain why that officer doesn't even acknowledge that remarkable admission? Just as remarkable is the fact that no other police officers who read that statement saw what you see either.
With regard to the van surveillance.- where is the witness statement? And why is this positive identification, (which without a doubt would have been the most important evidence Amaral had obtained against Murat) NOT mentioned as the No.1 reason for Murat being made an Arguido by the AG in the Final report?
I'm pretty sure that if Amaral resided in the UK and was telling this huge lie to all and sundry in TV chat shows and elsewhere as he does in Portugal, JT would have sued him.
However IMO she has contented herself with the fact that Kate states quite clearly in her book that Amaral's claim that she positively identified Murat as the abductor 'is completely untrue'.. So what is more to the point is - if that is a big fat lie, why hasn't Amaral been shouting it from the rooftops, calling press conferences etc etc to announce that Kate McCann is a liar, has libelled him in her book and that he can prove.it. I suspect nothing would have given him greater pleasure - and yet not a peep from him.
There is not a single credible reason why JT (or any of the others) would agree to risk ruining their own children's lives, by perjuring themselves and becoming accomplices in the disposal of the body of a dead child. They would all have to be severely mentally deranged to even think about it. As far as I know none of them were 'sectioned' on their return home, in fact I believe they all resumed their highly responsible jobs.
-
I suppose you never discuss or take an interest in any one elses life, the news, cases in the media, watch tv etc?
?>)()<
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
They don't know what this forum is for.
-
Before taking this decision (raid in Mr Murat's villa), we undertook a recognition operation rather unofficial.
-
I'm pretty sure that if Amaral resided in the UK and was telling this huge lie to all and sundry in TV chat shows and elsewhere as he does in Portugal, JT would have sued him.
No "imo" here, either you're Ms Tanner or you imagine you are.
Perhaps you should be careful before saying ex-inspector Amaral is a liar. Even if he's not a CR's client.
After Ms Tanner's recognition, the AG and the judge Frias went to Portimao Tribunal and decided to order a raid on Mr Murat's villa, which happened early morning the following day.
-
You'd be better off reading Harry Potter than Amaral's book, Anne.
Assez ennuyeux, l'un comme l'autre..
-
Though in criminal novels the murderer always comes back on the crime scene, one would wonder why Mr Murat, after abducting a little girl and instead of keeping her quiet, would be sneaking around. The point was that he had lied pretending not to be there, the trio found it suspicious and as they were three, that was it !
He introduced himself the following morning and likely a confusion was made between late night and early morning for people who hardly slept a wink. Mr O'Brien even suggests it.
-
No "imo" here, either you're Ms Tanner or you imagine you are.
Perhaps you should be careful before saying ex-inspector Amaral is a liar. Even if he's not a CR's client.
After Ms Tanner's recognition, the AG and the judge Frias went to Portimao Tribunal and decided to order a raid on Mr Murat's villa, which happened early morning the following day.
From Amarals book
JANE TANNER FORMALLY RECOGNISES ROBERT MURAT
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?
unquote
IMO That is nothing like what actually happened. The whole thing was a shambles.
And if JT identified Murat as the abductor - then why did Amaral NOT get a witness statement from her. Even the lowliest rookie in the PJ would know that that would be the first thing to do if she had made a positive identification.
Common sense dictates that the reason why he didn't bother was because a statement from her saying she was NOT able to identify Murat as the abductor was of no use to him. The man is a complete liar.
-
From Amarals book
JANE TANNER FORMALLY RECOGNISES ROBERT MURAT
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?
unquote
IMO That is nothing like what actually happened. The whole thing was a shambles.
And if JT identified Murat as the abductor - then why did Amaral NOT get a witness statement from her. Even the lowliest rookie in the PJ would know that that would be the first thing to do if she had made a positive identification.
Common sense dictates that the reason why he didn't bother was because a statement from her saying she was NOT able to identify Murat as the abductor was of no use to him. The man is a complete liar.
we want to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him as the individual she saw on the night of the disappearance.
is totally fictitious. Here is the original and in a post above my translation about the "rather unofficial proceeding".
Antes dessa decisão, procedemos a uma diligência de reconhecimento pouco formal.
-
And if JT identified Murat as the abductor - then why did Amaral NOT get a witness statement from her. Even the lowliest rookie in the PJ would know that that would be the first thing to do if she had made a positive identification.
Common sense dictates that the reason why he didn't bother was because a statement from her saying she was NOT able to identify Murat as the abductor was of no use to him. The man is a complete liar.
Benice, your detestation of Mr Amaral blinds you, I'm afraid. Can't you read that the proceeding was unofficial ? The police isn't allowed to do this kind of recognition operation without the spotted man knowing he's spotted. This is a fundamental right. But, in this case, the police pondered a little girl's safety was at stake. Can't you understand that sometimes the police does unofficial things, not because of corruption but because there is force majeure ? And can't you understand that there was no way Ms Tanner's saying would be recorded ?
The question was simple : is it worthwhile to destroy a man's life with a raid etc. ?
-
we want to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him as the individual she saw on the night of the disappearance.
is totally fictitious. Here is the original and in a post above my translation about the "rather unofficial proceeding".
Antes dessa decisão, procedemos a uma diligência de reconhecimento pouco formal.
Well blame the interpreter not me.
Quote
The following chapters are translated from the French version of the book
By AnnaEsse
Unquote
And regardless of whether the translation is strictly correct or not - do you really think that Jane Tanner would deny being taken back to the police station, and sitting there with other policemen and a translator whilst her statement was drawn up - if that is what happened? That's just plain silly.
-
Benice, your detestation of Mr Amaral blinds you, I'm afraid. Can't you read that the proceeding was unofficial ? The police isn't allowed to do this kind of recognition operation without the spotted man knowing he's spotted. This is a fundamental right. But, in this case, the police pondered a little girl's safety was at stake. Can't you understand that sometimes the police does unofficial things, not because of corruption but because there is force majeure ? And can't you understand that there was no way Ms Tanner's saying would be recorded ?
The question was simple : is it worthwhile to destroy a man's life with a raid etc. ?
Amaral claims that Jane Tanner FORMALLY identified Murat. 'Formally' means with official authorisation.
The PJ officers didn't seem to know it was unofficial otherwise they would not have phoned in to see if JT needed to sign anything.
And even if it was unofficial in your opinion, it is still a massive lie to say that Jane Tanner FORMALLY identified Murat. She did not.
-
Well blame the interpreter not me.
Quote
The following chapters are translated from the French version of the book
By AnnaEsse
Unquote
And regardless of whether the translation is strictly correct or not - do you really think that Jane Tanner would deny being taken back to the police station, and sitting there with other policemen and a translator whilst her statement was drawn up - if that is what happened? That's just plain silly.
Benice, you're supposed to make sure a translation is right before using it. This is basic. A translation of a translation is risky. Now you have to understand that the translators did the job for free and that translating takes a lot of time.
Have a look at "plain silly" and try to open your mind ! Ms Tanner would have signed a document the police would have asked her to sign. But the police didn't want it. Why ? Because what they did was illegal ! Isn't that clear ? Ms Tanner's recognition was just an indication, it wasn't sufficient, fortunately, to hang Mr Murat.
-
Amaral claims that Jane Tanner FORMALLY identified Murat. 'Formally' means with official authorisation.
The PJ officers didn't seem to know it was unofficial otherwise they would not have phoned in to see if JT needed to sign anything.
And even if it was unofficial in your opinion, it is still a massive lie to say that Jane Tanner FORMALLY identified Murat. She did not.
No, Inspector Amaral said she was peremptória em reconhecer Robert Murat como o raptor, which means she was "peremptory, categorical in recognizing RM as being the abductor".
Things are not "unofficial in (my) opinion", this is in the original text !
Nothing authorizes you to state people lie without proving it.
-
No, Inspector Amaral said she was peremptória em reconhecer Robert Murat como o raptor, which means she was "peremptory, categorical in recognizing RM as being the abductor".
Things are not "unofficial in (my) opinion", this is in the original text !
Nothing authorizes you to state people lie without proving it.
So how was the word FORMALLY wrongly translated. What should it have been?
As for your claim that nothing authorises me to state people lie without proving it. Are you being serious? How many times are the McCanns and the group accused of lying without any proof? As far as I'm concerned I do provide proof and in this case as Jane Tanner was there and he wasn't and her description of what happened has not been challenged by any of the police officers who were also there - then she is telling the truth imo.
If JT lied about not identifying Murat - then where is Amaral's proof of that? According to you he has none because there is no record - but that hasn't stopped him of accusing her of lying which he does every time he claims she identified Murat - through various Portuguese media channels has it? But I suppose that's OK in your eyes.
-
"peremptória" means "categorical", not "formally".
I'm amazed by so much passion, Benice ! I may doubt what X or Y said, but I wouldn't say "X or Y lied", because it's a complex notion. Lying to hide one's guilt isn't the same as lying to cheat someone, for example.
If I'm hiding a Jew in my house during WW2 and a nazi bangs on my door and ask if I saw a Jew, I'll say no. Stricto sensu or according to Kant, this is a lie.
Give a reason why inspector Amaral would pretend Ms Tanner did recognize the carrier whereas she said she didn't. What was his interest in this ? He wasn't the one who decided the raid on Mr Murat's villa. Only the Ag and the judge in charge with respect of civil rights could give that order.
Had Ms Tanner not recognized Mr Murat, the raid on his villa wouldn't likely have occurred.
-
If you think JT was telling the police officer that in 2007 she had identified Murat as the abductor, then explain why that officer doesn't even acknowledge that remarkable admission? Just as remarkable is the fact that no other police officers who read that statement saw what you see either.
With regard to the van surveillance.- where is the witness statement? And why is this positive identification, (which without a doubt would have been the most important evidence Amaral had obtained against Murat) NOT mentioned as the No.1 reason for Murat being made an Arguido by the AG in the Final report?
I'm pretty sure that if Amaral resided in the UK and was telling this huge lie to all and sundry in TV chat shows and elsewhere as he does in Portugal, JT would have sued him.
However IMO she has contented herself with the fact that Kate states quite clearly in her book that Amaral's claim that she positively identified Murat as the abductor 'is completely untrue'.. So what is more to the point is - if that is a big fat lie, why hasn't Amaral been shouting it from the rooftops, calling press conferences etc etc to announce that Kate McCann is a liar, has libelled him in her book and that he can prove.it. I suspect nothing would have given him greater pleasure - and yet not a peep from him.
There is not a single credible reason why JT (or any of the others) would agree to risk ruining their own children's lives, by perjuring themselves and becoming accomplices in the disposal of the body of a dead child. They would all have to be severely mentally deranged to even think about it. As far as I know none of them were 'sectioned' on their return home, in fact I believe they all resumed their highly responsible jobs.
Hey, I'm only working from and explaining what Jane Tanner ACTUALLY SAID, not what you want her to say to fit your pre conceived ideas.
In your heart you also must know it rings true as other members of the group at the same time were identifying Murat as well.
As Anna has explained the whole process was in, Anna's words, illegal, although i was always under the impression it was more inadmissible, but i bow to Anna as she knows far more about Portuguese law than i do.
That's why i would imagine there are no files in the PJ files and that's why it was Bob Small in the van and not Amaral.
Amaral can't win can he. The supporters of the family are now shouting "typical Amaral, making a mess of the id and doing something illegal".
When in actual fact he was moving heaven and earth at that point to try and find the child as fast as he could.
Can you imagine the outcry from the same family supporters had Murat actually had the child and Amaral had not done this?
In relation to what Kate says in her book, as she is a proven and self admitted liar (page 206 i believe of the book Madeleine) I'm not inclined to believe what she says and as i have said the other members of the Tapas mob were identifying Murat at the same time.
-
Give a reason why inspector Amaral would pretend Ms Tanner did recognize the carrier whereas she said she didn't. What was his interest in this ?
He wasn't the one who decided the raid on Mr Murat's villa. Only the Ag and the judge in charge with respect of civil rights could give that order.
Had Ms Tanner not recognized Mr Murat, the raid on his villa wouldn't likely have occurred.
So you are saying that permission was granted to search Murats villa because of JT's identification - even though according to you the surveillance operation was illegal and that is why there is no record of it.
Therefore that means that a Judge or the AG actually accepted - with no verifying documentation whatsoever, verbal evidence, which they knew had resulted from an unlawful act by one of their own Police force - and granted permission for Murat's villa to be searched on the strength of that illegally obtained verbal evidence - in direct contravention of Murat's civil rights. Really?
-
"peremptória" means "categorical", not "formally".
I'm amazed by so much passion, Benice ! I may doubt what X or Y said, but I wouldn't say "X or Y lied", because it's a complex notion. Lying to hide one's guilt isn't the same as lying to cheat someone, for example.
If I'm hiding a Jew in my house during WW2 and a nazi bangs on my door and ask if I saw a Jew, I'll say no. Stricto sensu or according to Kant, this is a lie.
Give a reason why inspector Amaral would pretend Ms Tanner did recognize the carrier whereas she said she didn't. What was his interest in this ? He wasn't the one who decided the raid on Mr Murat's villa. Only the Ag and the judge in charge with respect of civil rights could give that order.
Had Ms Tanner not recognized Mr Murat, the raid on his villa wouldn't likely have occurred.
Really Anne? You seem to display equal or greater passion in defence of Amaral.
-
Hey, I'm only working from and explaining what Jane Tanner ACTUALLY SAID, not what you want her to say to fit your pre conceived ideas.
In your heart you also must know it rings true as other members of the group at the same time were identifying Murat as well.
As Anna has explained the whole process was in, Anna's words, illegal, although i was always under the impression it was more inadmissible, but i bow to Anna as she knows far more about Portuguese law than i do.
That's why i would imagine there are no files in the PJ files and that's why it was Bob Small in the van and not Amaral.
Amaral can't win can he. The supporters of the family are now shouting "typical Amaral, making a mess of the id and doing something illegal".
When in actual fact he was moving heaven and earth at that point to try and find the child as fast as he could.
Can you imagine the outcry from the same family supporters had Murat actually had the child and Amaral had not done this?
In relation to what Kate says in her book, as she is a proven and self admitted liar (page 206 i believe of the book Madeleine) I'm not inclined to believe what she says and as i have said the other members of the Tapas mob were identifying Murat at the same time.
Maybe you should inform SY that Jane Tanner admitted in her statement that she had identified Murat as the abductor - as they seem to have missed that momentous news.
The idea that discrepancies can only indicate that someone is lying is wrong. This is what the police officer interviewing Jane Tanner says on the subject:
Quote
4078 “It’s alright. I can fully understand why you have so much frustration. And, in as much as the part where Gerry thinks he was standing somewhere slightly different to where you saw him, well that, you know, people do see things from different perspectives”.
Reply “Umm”.
4078 “You know, we can take a statement from people, if an incident happened outside and there was a group of people watching it, everybody would have a different take on what they had seen”.
Reply “Umm”.
4078 “And that, you know, it doesn’t matter. You can only say what you can remember and as far as you can remember it. And if it is different from how it was then things can be explained”.
Unquote
It is that fact that the sceptics always ignore - but insist that every single word of every statement is set in stone and can never be deviated from. Fortunately at least the UK police are well aware that that is simply not the case - when you are dealing with people trying to recall events.
IMO Amaral was moving heaven and earth to get a conviction. Whether it was in haste because the world was watching or whether it was normal procedure for him - he decided who was guilty first and then tried to fit the evidence round it instead of examining the evidence and then deciding who could be guilty on the strength of it.
I'm not surprised Amaral kept well away from the unlawful surveillance. Did Bob Small know he was participating in an illegal act?
As a police officer, Amaral's blatent disregard for the law when it suited him, is disgraceful- especially when the McCanns and others were being warned of dire consequences if they did the same.. (secrecy laws?).
Your 'evidence' that Kate McCann is a proven liar is truly laughable. By the same token the vast majority of the adult population must be proven liars too. Who hasn't, at some time, changed or avoided an arrangement/appointment/date by giving a reason which was not strictly true or as in Kate's case was a slight exaggeration of the truth?
Once again you will not allow the McCanns to do what you accept without question is perfectly normal for the rest of us.
-
Twist and spin, Benice, is of no use here.
There was no "permission" to be obtained from the AG and the Judge. They decide and order, that's their prerogative. The investigation is directed by the MP, this is something you don't want to admit, because Mr Amaral must be charged in order to discharge Madeleine's parents.
A tabloid "journalist" alerted the LC about suspicions she had concerning Mr Murat. He unfortunately lived in a house at walking distance and in the direction the walking carrier had taken. The police couldn't ignore this, but no AG orders a raid without much evidence if there's no emergency. A little girl was at stake, remember ? There was no time to organize a parade, that's why they used the van.
I don't know what they would have done if Ms Tanner had been categorical Mr Murat wasn't the carrier, but the fact she recognized his way of walking supported certainly the order to invade Mr Murat's privacy.
-
Really Anne? You seem to display equal or greater passion in defence of Amaral.
I never howl with the wolves, do you ?
-
Twist and spin, Benice, is of no use here.
There was no "permission" to be obtained from the AG and the Judge. They decide and order, that's their prerogative. The investigation is directed by the MP, this is something you don't want to admit, because Mr Amaral must be charged in order to discharge Madeleine's parents.
A tabloid "journalist" alerted the LC about suspicions she had concerning Mr Murat. He unfortunately lived in a house at walking distance and in the direction the walking carrier had taken. The police couldn't ignore this, but no AG orders a raid without much evidence if there's no emergency. A little girl was at stake, remember ? There was no time to organize a parade, that's why they used the van.
I don't know what they would have done if Ms Tanner had been categorical Mr Murat wasn't the carrier, but the fact she recognized his way of walking supported certainly the order to invade Mr Murat's privacy.
It's clearly not me twisting and spinning Anne. I was commenting only on the information you provided which you now appear to be contradicting.
(must go out now)
-
No, Inspector Amaral said she was peremptória em reconhecer Robert Murat como o raptor, which means she was "peremptory, categorical in recognizing RM as being the abductor".
Things are not "unofficial in (my) opinion", this is in the original text !
Nothing authorizes you to state people lie without proving it.
Could you provide a cite from the files about this?
There must be a report somewhere in the files, surely.
-
Could you provide a cite from the files about this?
There must be a report somewhere in the files, surely.
There is NO report of the van surveillance exercise in the files, didnt you read back?
-
Only because you do not understand.
Correct
Incorrect! As has been stated countless times potential suspects are asked questions by investigators such as:
Where were you on the night of the 3rd?
Who were you with on the night of the 3rd?
What were you doing there on the night of the 3rd?
Or in Kate McCann's case, 48 questions which she refused to answer to demonstrate her innocence.
If the suspect can answer these questions to the satisfaction of the investigators, which fits in with the times, places and evidence found (amongst other things) at the crime scene then they have "proven their innocence".
If they cannot to use the police terminology "rule themselves out" by not demonstrating their innocence they remain suspects until such time as evidence is found to incriminate them (see the Stephen Lawrence case as an example), they remain suspects until clear and verifiable evidence comes along which rules them out (at which point they have proven their innocence), or another suspect is found with clear evidence against him or her (in which case the original suspects have their innocence proved by the weight of evidence against someone else).
No, you are right (to a point in this case) and you must ask why that is? The best way to describe it is to run through the scenario and put oursleves in the mind of an investigator.
The first question is to look at the investigation itself and ask:
"Was the investigation completed"?
The answer is no, it was not completed, after all the archiving report clearly stated the investigation was "disturbed".
Then you would ask:
"Why was the investigation disturbed?"
The answer to that question again comes from the archiving report which states it was disturbed by the group's refusal to take part in a reconstruction.
Then as an investigator you must ask:
"Why would the group refuse to take part in an investigation which has been set up to look for their friend's missing child?"
You look at the evidence from the email exchanges when they were asked to take part and th reasons the group gave for not attending. These comprise of issues such as they do not see the benefit it will add to the investigation and they think the PJ are trying to set up their friends.
Then you ask:
"Are these credible reasons for not taking part when the group know the importance of the reconstruction to the investigation into their friend's missing child?"
The answer to that question is:
It is not normal for witnesses to dictate the reasons of why a reconstruction is needed, which ultimately is designed to help find their friend's missing child. Why should they question the way the investigation is seeking to move forward? They are doctors not policemen.
An investigator would conclude:
They would not expect us how to tell them to treat a patient so why are they questioning how we go about our work?
So in answer to that question, the querying of operational techniques - and what it will add to the investigation- is not a valid reason for the witnesses not to attend.
Ok, so what about the issue of "fit up". You then see that the group were offered, at the reconstruction, the presence of legal representation, the Foreign Office and leicestershire Police. So you can only conclude refusing to take part for fear of fit up is not a valid reason to not attend given the evidence.
So you are left feeling that it is highly suspicious as to why they would want to kill the reconstruction which seeks to move the investigation forward and generate new evidence when the reasons they have given for not taking part do not stand up to investigative scrutiny.
An investigator would ask:
"Why are they seeking to not take part in the recon and kill the investigation with reasons which are weak and have no basis in factual reality"?
And then conclude that the group refused to take part specifically and deliberately to prevent the generation of new evidence.
Then you must ask
"Why would they do that"?
You would conclude that there are only three possible outcomes of a reconstruction.
The first one is that no new evidence or leads would be generated, in which case, the status quo remains and there is no damage to the group in taking part, and there is no justifiable reason why the group should not take part.
The second is that evidence and leads would be generated which would help police find an abductor. As this is what the group have been stating this is what has happened all along there is no damage to the group in taking part, (indeed it would help the McCann's prove their innocence) and there is no justifiable reason why the group should not take part.
The third option is that new leads and evidence would be generated against the parents. Then there is damage to the group in taking part and a justifiable reason why the group should not take part.
So an investigator looking at these scenarios could only conclude that they did not attend and the only logical reason for that fits in with option three. It is the only one which makes sense of their decision not to attend.
As a consequence the McCann's have not only been unable to prove their innocence, but also the suspicion increases against them as a result of theirs and their friend's decision to kill the reconstruction and in turn the investigation.
So in answer to your point about lack of evidence the reason there is no evidence against them is because the investigation was/is incomplete and that it is only incomplete due to their refusal to take part in the reconstruction.
Which is highly suspicious in itself given my reasoning above.
Wrong! Because once again the archiving report and Leicestershire Police's statement specifically say otherwise, don't they?
It's not me that has said it is the AG and LP, i am explaining to you what they mean.
Thank you for taking the time to respond in such detail. The fundamental difference is that legally and practically the onus remains on the police to find and substantiate reasons why a suspect may be guilty. They may have suspicions about all sorts of people, but unless they can find credible evidence then the matter will rest there. THere is absolutely no onus on any suspect to do anything that will "prove their innocence".
There is also no sanction that can be applied to require any suspect to either provide "proof of innocence" or indeed to say anything. For practical purposes the right to silence still remains in UK criminal law (although somewhat diluted). It certainly exists under Portuguese law, where even a confession needs to repeated in court.
The list of 48 questions put to the McCanns were absolutely disgraceful, had nothing to do with finding the missing child, and in my opinion Kate McCann received very good advice to refuse to answer them. The final question (49 from memory) should have resulted in disciplinary proceedings.
Thank heavens we live in jurisdictions where the presumption of innocence applies, rather than presumption of guilt.
Given that the McCanns appear to have the unequivocal support of the Met, and remain entirely at liberty, I suggest the argument is more in favour.
I suspect that we must agree to differ on this one.
-
Thank you for taking the time to respond in such detail. The fundamental difference is that legally and practically the onus remains on the police to find and substantiate reasons why a suspect may be guilty. They may have suspicions about all sorts of people, but unless they can find credible evidence then the matter will rest there. THere is absolutely no onus on any suspect to do anything that will "prove their innocence".
There is also no sanction that can be applied to require any suspect to either provide "proof of innocence" or indeed to say anything. For practical purposes the right to silence still remains in UK criminal law (although somewhat diluted). It certainly exists under Portuguese law, where even a confession needs to repeated in court.
The list of 48 questions put to the McCanns were absolutely disgraceful, had nothing to do with finding the missing child, and in my opinion Kate McCann received very good advice to refuse to answer them. The final question (49 from memory) should have resulted in disciplinary proceedings.
Thank heavens we live in jurisdictions where the presumption of innocence applies, rather than presumption of guilt.
Given that the McCanns appear to have the unequivocal support of the Met, and remain entirely at liberty, I suggest the argument is more in favour.
I suspect that we must agree to differ on this one.
No you arguing a different point to me Jean Pierre.
Of course the Police have to provide sufficient evidence to prove someone is guiilty in a court of law but if a suspect refuses to answer their questions, or is unable to rule themsleves out, they remain a suspect until such time as they can prove their innocence to the police or the police find evidence against that suspect.
And for good reason, as it is not normal for innocent parties to frustrate the Police unless they have something to hide.
So the suspect will remain so until such time as they can demonstrate their innocence one way or another.
-
No you arguing a different point to me Jean Pierre.
Of course the Police have to provide sufficient evidence to prove someone is guiilty in a court of law but if a suspect refuses to answer their questions, or is unable to rule themsleves out, they remain a suspect until such time as they can prove their innocence to the police or the police find evidence against that suspect.
And for good reason, as it is not normal for innocent parties to frustrate the Police unless they have something to hide.
So the suspect will remain so until such time as they can demonstrate their innocence one way or another.
Do you think the McCanns are still suspects? They aren't!
-
The Portuguese police is far less powerful than the UK one. This is an important point that should not be neglected.
Some here, the majority actually, say the McCanns aren't involved in their child's misfortune.
Some, the minority, have a doubt.
I don't think that anybody here would say they are guilty.
-
Do you think the McCanns are still suspects? They aren't!
The old fall back "But....but Andy said they weren't suspects".
They still are in Portugal.
-
The old fall back "But....but Andy said they weren't suspects".
They still are in Portugal.
They are not. The arguido status was lifted in July 2008.
-
They are not. The arguido status was lifted in July 2008.
Arguido is a formal or official suspect. They could not be Arguido's when the case was shelved.
They still are suspects as the archiving report says they have not demonstrated their innocence.
You don't have ot be Arguido to still be a suspect!
-
So Murat is still a suspect 8((()*/
-
Arguido is a formal or official suspect. They could not be Arguido's when the case was shelved.
They still are suspects as the archiving report says they have not demonstrated their innocence.
You don't have ot be Arguido to still be a suspect!
I think this "demonstrating your innocence" business has been done to death on here. The McCanns, and Murat are NOT suspects.
-
So Murat is still a suspect 8((()*/
Nope he proved his innocence
8((()*/
-
I think this "demonstrating your innocence" business has been done to death on here. The McCanns, and Murat are NOT suspects.
To you they are not and that is because you believe every word they say.
But the reality is as per the archiving report is the official position as it stands now and until such time as their innocence is proved the remain suspects in Portugal (although clealry not as Arguidos).
The prove your innocence thing has only been done to death because you will not accept the fact that police investigations and Court trials have, for very obvious reasons, different functions and different interpretations of innocence and guilt.
We've only been going round in circles because you are not prepared to give an inch and admit the reality of the situation.
-
Nope he proved his innocence
8((()*/
How did he do that?
-
How did he do that?
As per the archiving report:
Therefore, despite the suspicions that befell the arguido, - partly because they were induced, albeit involuntarily, by himself, namely the protagonism that he assumed both with the group of friends, which the McCann couple was part of, and with the journalists, showing his great curiosity in finding out what diligences had been performed and which were to be performed, and by objective elements and the fact that his residence is located in the direction which, according to Jane, was taken by the stranger who carried the child in his arms – and which therefore demanded his constitution as an arguido. It is nevertheless certain that through the collected evidence, said suspicions gradually emptied themselves, until the point where any connection of the arguido to the child's disappearance was set aside, which is why, at the end, the archiving of the process will be determined.
-
As per the archiving report:
Therefore, despite the suspicions that befell the arguido, - partly because they were induced, albeit involuntarily, by himself, namely the protagonism that he assumed both with the group of friends, which the McCann couple was part of, and with the journalists, showing his great curiosity in finding out what diligences had been performed and which were to be performed, and by objective elements and the fact that his residence is located in the direction which, according to Jane, was taken by the stranger who carried the child in his arms – and which therefore demanded his constitution as an arguido. It is nevertheless certain that through the collected evidence, said suspicions gradually emptied themselves, until the point where any connection of the arguido to the child's disappearance was set aside, which is why, at the end, the archiving of the process will be determined.
So that just applies to Murat? @)(++(*
21 July 2008 - Arguido Status Lifted
On 21 July 2008, the Portuguese attorney-general's office announced that the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance was to be archived, pending further evidence.
The arguido status of the three suspects; Gerry McCann, Kate McCann and Robert Murat was lifted.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id134.html
-
So that just applies to Murat? @)(++(*
Does your man Menezez say that Murat has to demonstrate his innocence like the McCann's?
After all you believe the archiving report, don't you?
@)(++(*
-
Does your man Menezez say that Murat has to demonstrate his innocence like the McCann's?
After all you believe the archiving report, don't you?
@)(++(*
Nowhere in the Final Report does it say that anyone has to demonstrate their innocence.
-
This post from Jean-Pierre deserves a further airing as it succinctly and accurately sums up the position, and shows why no one ever has to "prove their innocence":
The fundamental difference is that legally and practically the onus remains on the police to find and substantiate reasons why a suspect may be guilty. They may have suspicions about all sorts of people, but unless they can find credible evidence then the matter will rest there. THere is absolutely no onus on any suspect to do anything that will "prove their innocence".
There is also no sanction that can be applied to require any suspect to either provide "proof of innocence" or indeed to say anything. For practical purposes the right to silence still remains in UK criminal law (although somewhat diluted). It certainly exists under Portuguese law, where even a confession needs to repeated in court.
The list of 48 questions put to the McCanns were absolutely disgraceful, had nothing to do with finding the missing child, and in my opinion Kate McCann received very good advice to refuse to answer them. The final question (49 from memory) should have resulted in disciplinary proceedings.
Thank heavens we live in jurisdictions where the presumption of innocence applies, rather than presumption of guilt.
Given that the McCanns appear to have the unequivocal support of the Met, and remain entirely at liberty, I suggest the argument is more in favour.
-
This post from Jean-Pierre deserves a further airing as it succinctly and accurately sums up the position, and shows why no one ever has to "prove their innocence":
The fundamental difference is that legally and practically the onus remains on the police to find and substantiate reasons why a suspect may be guilty. They may have suspicions about all sorts of people, but unless they can find credible evidence then the matter will rest there. THere is absolutely no onus on any suspect to do anything that will "prove their innocence".
There is also no sanction that can be applied to require any suspect to either provide "proof of innocence" or indeed to say anything. For practical purposes the right to silence still remains in UK criminal law (although somewhat diluted). It certainly exists under Portuguese law, where even a confession needs to repeated in court.
The list of 48 questions put to the McCanns were absolutely disgraceful, had nothing to do with finding the missing child, and in my opinion Kate McCann received very good advice to refuse to answer them. The final question (49 from memory) should have resulted in disciplinary proceedings.
Thank heavens we live in jurisdictions where the presumption of innocence applies, rather than presumption of guilt.
Given that the McCanns appear to have the unequivocal support of the Met, and remain entirely at liberty, I suggest the argument is more in favour.
**Sighs** how many times does it need to be said before it starts going in?
I agree with what Jean Pierre is saying but he is not addressing the point i have been making for several pages.
His reply is actually to a point i have not made. This appears to be where the confusion is stemming from, unless of course it is simply another supporter tactic of not budging an inch despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
Look, of course it is up to the police to find evidence, it is up to the police to prove guilt which would then lead to evidence presented to a prosecutor to take before a court. Of course it is up to a witness or suspect to have the right to remain silent.
However the actions of a witness determines whether they can "prove their innocence" and be ruled out of an investigation as a suspect.
If a suspect cooperates and can either through direct or indirect means rule himself out then he has proven his innocence to the police (note not a court - see the difference) and the investigators can pursue other suspects.
If a suspect uses his right to silence then he has not proven his innocence to the investigation and will remain a suspect until such time as his actions and statements can be independently verified and ruled out (or in as the case may be).
Of course IN A COURTROOM there is a presumption of innocence applies.
But we are not talking about a court room, we are talking about a police investigation, for which the archiving report is based upon.
In police investigations all over the world, people the investigators believe may be suspects have to show to the police how they were not involved in the crime in order to be ruled out.
That can be through verifiable means like alibis, through third party statements (such as say descriptions from victims or witnesses to the event), or through things like forensics.
The whole premise of police investigations is to start with suspects and rule them out as you go along.
The ruling out of a suspect is essentially a "demonstration of innocence".
This is the only way to explain the apparently contradictory statements in the archiving report, which stated there was no evidence against the parents yet on the other hand they had not demonstrated their innocence.
I note supporters of the family are quick to jump on the "innocent until proven guilty" line in response but there appears to be no answer to the riposte that that applies in a court case and not a police investigation.
Furthermore supporters have never been able to offer an alternative explanation for these two statements in the final report.
An example i can cite to justify what i am saying is the suspects in the Stephen Lawrence case.
They were the main suspects as they were unable to demonstrate their innocence to the police when they were identified as suspects, yet there was no or insufficient evidence in order to prosecute them in a court.
They remained the suspects for 19 years as they had failed to demonstrate their innocence to the police but there was no evidence that they had committed a crime that could be brought before a court.
So they were "innocent until proven guilty" in court terms for 19 years but they remained suspects in the investigation even though there was no or insufficient evidence against them.
So no evidence they had committed a crime BUT they were still suspected because they had failed to demonstrate their innocence.
It really is that simple.
-
Did you think Colin Stagg was guilty, Albertini? After all, he hadn't "proved his innocence", had he? In fact when the court case collapsed I seem to remember the police giving a "not looking for anyone else" type statement.
-
Did you think Colin Stagg was guilty, Albertini? After all, he hadn't "proved his innocence", had he? In fact when the court case collapsed I seem to remember the police giving a "not looking for anyone else" type statement.
Rachel, Let's not derail the points i have made by going off at a tangent, otherwise we are going to go round in circles for many more pages.
Can you either accept what i am saying is true or rebut it giving your reasons.
For the benefit of all of us please do not use "the innocent until proven guilty" line again. I have addressed that several times already in saying it applies only to a court case and not necessarily to a police investigation, which are two different things.
Do you understand and agree with what i am saying?
-
Rachel, Let's not derail the points i have made by going off at a tangent, otherwise we are going to go round in circles for many more pages.
Can you either accept what i am saying is true or rebut it giving your reasons.
For the benefit of all of us please do not use "the innocent until proven guilty" line again. I have addressed that several times already in saying it applies only to a court case and not necessarily to a police investigation, which are two different things.
Do you understand and agree with what i am saying?
I'm derailing nothing. It was a perfectly reasonable analogy. Strange that you won't answer...
This "demonstrate their innocence" business has been rebutted several times by posters who are much more eloquent than I am. I suggest you have another read of Jean-Pierre's excellent post a few pages back.
-
Albertini, If you were correct in your assertions then IMO, without a shadow of doubt, the final words of the AG would state that the non-involvement of the McCanns was NOT apparent, because they had failed to demonstrate their innocence, and that the case was being archived only because there was insufficient evidence to continue the process.
The Final Report clearly states the opposite of that and says:
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action IS apparent.....
Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order: Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is NO evidence that they committed any crime .”
It was Judge Tugendhat's opinion that those words meant exactly what they said - with no ifs and buts attached - and with respect Albertini - I prefer to take the word of a Senior High Court Judge - than a forum poster who as far as I know has no legal training.
-
Albertini, If you were correct in your assertions then IMO, without a shadow of doubt, the final words of the AG would state that the non-involvement of the McCanns was NOT apparent, because they had failed to demonstrate their innocence, and that the case was being archived only because there was insufficient evidence to continue the process.
The Final Report clearly states the opposite of that and says:
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action IS apparent.....
Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order: Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is NO evidence that they committed any crime .”
It was Judge Tugendhat's opinion that those words meant exactly what they said - with no ifs and buts attached - and with respect Albertini - I prefer to take the word of a Senior High Court Judge - than a forum poster who as far as I know has no legal training.
But that sentence regarding "demonstrating their innocence" just won't go away will it?
No one has rebutted that or explained what it means.
It is not worded inter dependently on the prosecutor's view that there was no evidence against the parents.
It sits in addition to it.
And that is for the reasons i have outlined citing the example of the Lawrence case as evidence to support my contention.
In relation to Judge Tug once again you have fallen into the trap of confusing "police investigation" with "courtroom case".
Judge Tug's comments in a court, are as i have said time and time again, different to the investigative process the prosecutor was reporting on.
It seems the confusion stems again from the supporters of the family confusing a prosecutors interpretation of a police investigation with the rulings of a court, which as i have stated many times is not the same thing.
For the record once more it is perfectly possible for there to be no evidence against you of committing a crime BUT still remain a suspect in the police investigation of that crime, particularly, as in this case, an investigation which was incomplete at the point of archiving it.
-
So, Albertini. Did you think Colin Stagg was guilty? After all. he didn't "demonstrate his innocence", did he?
-
But that sentence regarding "demonstrating their innocence" just won't go away will it?
No one has rebutted that or explained what it means.
It is not worded inter dependently on the prosecutor's view that there was no evidence against the parents.
It sits in addition to it.
And that is for the reasons i have outlined citing the example of the Lawrence case as evidence to support my contention.
In relation to Judge Tug once again you have fallen into the trap of confusing "police investigation" with "courtroom case".
Judge Tug's comments in a court, are as i have said time and time again, different to the investigative process the prosecutor was reporting on.
It seems the confusion stems again from the supporters of the family confusing a prosecutors interpretation of a police investigation with the rulings of a court, which as i have stated many times is not the same thing.
For the record once more it is perfectly possible for there to be no evidence against you of committing a crime BUT still remain a suspect in the police investigation of that crime, particularly, as in this case, an investigation which was incomplete at the point of archiving it.
I have to go out now, but I will try to get back to you later. In the meantime maybe you could explain why the AG's final words directly contradict your assertions.
It doesn't matter where or when Judge Tug gave his opinion. Common sense dictates it would be the same in whatever context he gave it.
-
I have to go out now, but I will try to get back to you later. In the meantime maybe you could explain why the AG's final words directly contradict your assertions.
In what way do they contradict my assertions?
The AG said there was no evidence against the parents.
He also said they had failed to demonstrate their innocence.
Which is what i have said all along.
It doesn't matter where or when Judge Tug gave his opinion. Common sense dictates it would be the same in whatever context he gave it.
Yes it does! As the AG's report WAS NOT a court ruling, it was an interpretation of a police investigation. Judge Tug's ruling was a court based one working under the presumption of innocent until proven guilty in a courtroom.
That is not the same as the police investigation nor the prosecuting lawyer's interpretation of that investigation.
-
Quote:"However the actions of a witness determines whether they can "prove their innocence" and be ruled out of an investigation as a suspect.
If a suspect cooperates and can either through direct or indirect means rule himself out then he has proven his innocence to the police (note not a court - see the difference) and the investigators can pursue other suspects." Unquote
No. The police have to find the evidence to make their case. The suspect is not required to rule himself out, or to prove his innocence.
Quote: "So no evidence they had committed a crime BUT they were still suspected because they had failed to demonstrate their innocence." Unquote
Again, incorrect. Undoubtedly in the eyes of the poilice investigators they may have been considered as suspects, but not because they had "failed to demonstrate their innocence," but because the police had failed to find the required evidence to bring the case to court.
-
So, Albertini. Did you think Colin Stagg was guilty? After all. he didn't "demonstrate his innocence", did he?
No i don't think he was guilty. His innocence was demonstrated by a third party confessing to the murder and that then "proved his innocence" and ruled him out as a suspect.
-
No i don't think he was guilty. His innocence was demonstrated by a third party confessing to the murder and that then "proved his innocence" and ruled him out as a suspect.
Yet by your argument, an innocent man would still be a "suspect" if a third-party had not confessed, because he had not "demonstrated his innocence".
I'm fed up of this now. We will have to agree to disagree.
-
Quote:"However the actions of a witness determines whether they can "prove their innocence" and be ruled out of an investigation as a suspect.
If a suspect cooperates and can either through direct or indirect means rule himself out then he has proven his innocence to the police (note not a court - see the difference) and the investigators can pursue other suspects." Unquote
No. The police have to find the evidence to make their case. The suspect is not required to rule himself out, or to prove his innocence.
Quote: "So no evidence they had committed a crime BUT they were still suspected because they had failed to demonstrate their innocence." Unquote
Again, incorrect. Undoubtedly in the eyes of the poilice investigators they may have been considered as suspects, but not because they had "failed to demonstrate their innocence," but because the police had failed to find the required evidence to bring the case to court.
Have you not read the last God knows how many pages?
Quote:"However the actions of a witness determines whether they can "prove their innocence" and be ruled out of an investigation as a suspect.
If a suspect cooperates and can either through direct or indirect means rule himself out then he has proven his innocence to the police (note not a court - see the difference) and the investigators can pursue other suspects." Unquote
No. The police have to find the evidence to make their case. The suspect is not required to rule himself out, or to prove his innocence.
Correct the police have to find evidence to make their case TO TAKE IT TO A COURT. However in an investigation the suspect is required to rule himself out otherwise he will remain a suspect until such time as he can either directly or indirectly prove his innocence and be ruled out as a suspect.
Quote: "So no evidence they had committed a crime BUT they were still suspected because they had failed to demonstrate their innocence." Unquote
Again, incorrect. Undoubtedly in the eyes of the poilice investigators they may have been considered as suspects, but not because they had "failed to demonstrate their innocence," but because the police had failed to find the required evidence to bring the case to court.
No it is not, because the AG report that you cling to clearly states that the parents did indeed "fail to demonstrate their innocence".
Do you really think that when the police can't find evidence they just drop interest interest in that suspect? No doesn't work like that.
They either keep looking for evidence, shelve the case or evidence presents itself that does demonstrate their innocence.
As i keep saying see the Lawrence case as a perfect example.
-
Yet by your argument, an innocent man would still be a "suspect" if a third-party had not confessed, because he had not "demonstrated his innocence".
I'm fed up of this now. We will have to agree to disagree.
And Colin Stagg was indeed still a suspect, from 1993 right up until 2002 (and despite his acquital) when the cold case team started looking at it which ultimately led to Napper's confession, which demonstrated Stagg's innocence.
-
There is no need to insult me - I have indeed read ALL the posts in this thread, and my point still stands. During a police investigation it is up to the police to make their case - not for the suspect to demonstrate his innocence. Once the police have found sufficiently strong evidence the matter proceeds to court where the accused remains innocent unless or until the prosecution proves their guilt.
The burden is always on the accuser; never the accused, whether at the point of suspect under police investigation, or in a court of law. This is a bedrock concept of our legal system, and thank God for it. You can spend the rest of your life arguing the opposite, but you will never be right.
-
There is no need to insult me - I have indeed read ALL the posts in this thread, and my point still stands. During a police investigation it is up to the police to make their case - not for the suspect to demonstrate his innocence. Once the police have found sufficiently strong evidence the matter proceeds to court where the accused remains innocent unless or until the prosecution proves their guilt.
The burden is always on the accuser; never the accused, whether at the point of suspect under police investigation, or in a court of law. This is a bedrock concept of our legal system, and thank God for it. You can spend the rest of your life arguing the opposite, but you will never be right.
How do you think suspects are ruled out of a police investigation?
What do you think the AG report meant when it said they had failed to demonstrate their innocence?
-
How do you think suspects are ruled out of a police investigation?
Why don't you give DCI Redwood a ring at Grange and ask him? Looks like Grange have ruled out the McCanns and friends...
-
Why don't you give DCI Redwood a ring at Grange and ask him? Looks like Grange have ruled out the McCanns and friends...
Lol, that old fallback when an argument is lost!
"But.....but Uncle Andy says they are not suspects!"
It's been covered by me many times. Let's see AT THE END (not the beginning) of the investigation where we are up to with them.
Anyway i thought you wanted to talk about Colin Stagg? Now that the detail i have given of that case has proven my point you seem less keen on discussing it.
I wonder why that is?
-
Lol, that old fallback when a argument is lost!
"But.....but Uncle Andy says they are not suspects!"
It's been covered by me many times. Let's see AT THE END (not the beginning) of the investigation where we are up to with them.
Anyway i thought you wanted to talk about Colin Stagg? Now that the detail i have given of that case has proven my point you seem less keen on discussing it.
I wonder why that is?
I'd rather go with what Uncle Andy says, with his years of police experience and access to all info, than an internet poster with no knowledge of what the Yard have.
As for Stagg, he didn't "demonstrate his innocence", did he? If a third party hadn't come into the equation, an innocent man would still be regarded with the stink of suspicion by armchair detectives.
-
I'd rather go with what Uncle Andy says, with his years of police experience and access to all info, than an internet poster with no knowledge of what the Yard have.
As for Stagg, he didn't "demonstrate his innocence", did he? If a third party hadn't come into the equation, an innocent man would still be regarded with the stink of suspicion by armchair detectives.
Like i say let's see what is said at the end of the investigation not at the start. He's only two thirds of the way through the review let alone starting a new investigation based on the outcome of that review.
Since when i have said that the demonstration of innocence can only be done by the suspect himself?
If you look i have consistently said that it can be done directly (by the suspect himelf) or indirectly (by third parties).
In this case Stagg's innocence was demonstrated when Napper confessed to the crime.
Thus this confession demonstrated to the police Stagg's innocence.
It is of course important to note that until this point Stagg was still a suspect becuase his innocence had not been demonstrated to the police despite the fact there was no evidence to allow a case to proceed to court.
Any clearer yet?
-
Like i say let's see what is said at the end of the investigation not at the start. He's only two thirds of the way through the review let alone starting a new investigation based on the outcome of that review.
Since when i have said that the demonstration of innocence can only be done by the suspect himself?
If you look i have consistently said that it can be done directly (by the suspect himelf) or indirectly (by third parties).
In this case Stagg's innocence was demonstrated when Napper confessed to the crime.
Thus this confession demonstrated to the police Stagg's innocence.
It is of course important to note that until this point Stagg was still a suspect becuase his innocence had not been demonstrated to the police despite the fact there was no evidence to allow a case to proceed to court.
Any clearer yet?
Not biting. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one, Albertini.
-
Not biting. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one, Albertini.
There is nothing to "agree to disagree on". Your arguments in response to mine are simply not valid and my points have not been countered or rebutted in any sensible or convincing way.
Furthermore your use (not mine) of the Colin Stagg case has simply highlighted my points further.
So you can tell youself we "agreed to disagree" until you are blue in the face but it does not change the fact that anyone with any degree of sense or nous will know that your arguments do not stack up and that you are wrong.
-
Why don't you give DCI Redwood a ring at Grange and ask him? Looks like Grange have ruled out the McCanns and friends...
I thought he said none of the tapas group were in the list of the 38 people. Did he say that SY had ruled them out? I must have missed it.
-
The burden is always on the accuser; never the accused, whether at the point of suspect under police investigation, or in a court of law. This is a bedrock concept of our legal system, and thank God for it. You can spend the rest of your life arguing the opposite, but you will never be right.
When one is a suspect or person of interest they are not accused. That only happens when they are CHARGED.
Then the burden is on the accuser and not before to prove they are guilty.
When a person is arrested on suspicion of x y z or even just brought in for questioning, without arrest, but on suspicion, they DO have to give alibis, answer questions etc etc, this constitutes trying or achieving to demonstrate their innocence
Its that simple really. And Mr Menesez said exactly that, they failed to do so, ergo they were never cleared by him! You can spend the rest of your life arguing against that you will never be right
8)--))
oh, and he did not have the same words for Murat, in fact, all suspicions over him*evaporated*, he was the only one actually cleared
In other words, the PT authorities to this day consider the Mccanns as suspects.
They were never cleared by any law enforcement prosecutor or judge, only except in Clarence Mitchells head and the British media and of course internet posters like you.
-
But that sentence regarding "demonstrating their innocence" just won't go away will it?
The AG makes it clear that the reason the reconstruction didn't take place was not the fault of the McCanns. He recognised that they were prevented from attending a reconstruction by the 'rules' set by the PJ and decisions by others that were completely beyond their control. He even states that they were the ones damaged - not that they caused damage to themselves.
He accepts that they were prevented from attending a reconstruction, and that it was not a case of them refusing to attend which IMO is why he did not consider that non-event should be used against then when he was making his final deliberations.
I notice you insist that the part of the report re 'demonstrating their innocence' is proof that the McCanns are still suspects, but when it comes to the AG's Final conclusion where he clearly states there is no evidence against them, the report suddenly becomes just 'someone's opinion' ?
IMO the fact is it's only some members of the public like yourself who have decided the McCanns are still suspects, but the Law of the Land clearly says they are not - and until the law changes from 'Innocent until proved Guilty' and becomes 'Guilty until proved innocent' - then your claim that they are still suspects is - and will remain, nothing more than your own personal opinion.
-
I thought he said none of the tapas group were in the list of the 38 people. Did he say that SY had ruled them out? I must have missed it.
Dunno, but I would read "not persons of interest" as being ruled out?
-
The AG makes it clear that the reason the reconstruction didn't take place was not the fault of the McCanns. He recognised that they were prevented from attending a reconstruction by the 'rules' set by the PJ and decisions by others that were completely beyond their control. He even states that they were the ones damaged - not that they caused damage to themselves.
He accepts that they were prevented from attending a reconstruction, and that it was not a case of them refusing to attend which IMO is why he did not consider that non-event should be used against then when he was making his final deliberations.
I notice you insist that the part of the report re 'demonstrating their innocence' is proof that the McCanns are still suspects, but when it comes to the AG's Final conclusion where he clearly states there is no evidence against them, the report suddenly becomes just 'someone's opinion' ?
IMO the fact is it's only some members of the public like yourself who have decided the McCanns are still suspects, but the Law of the Land clearly says they are not - and until the law changes from 'Innocent until proved Guilty' and becomes 'Guilty until proved innocent' - then your claim that they are still suspects is - and will remain, nothing more than your own personal opinion.
PJ Final Report
pages 1 and 2
Ministry Of Justice
Judiciary Police
Investigative Criminal Department of Portimao
NUIPC-201/07.0 GALGS
4th Brigade
Inspector Joao Carlos
Denouncer/Offended – Judiciary Police
Denunciated/Arguidos - Robert James Queriol Evelegh Murat, identified and questioned at fls. 1170, 1947 and 1959.
*Gerald Patrick McCann, identified and questioned at fls. 2569.
*Kate Marie Healy, identified and questioned at fls. 2557.
-
The AG makes it clear that the reason the reconstruction didn't take place was not the fault of the McCanns. He recognised that they were prevented from attending a reconstruction by the 'rules' set by the PJ and decisions by others that were completely beyond their control.
Does the AG speak of "not the fault of the McCanns" or of "recognising they were prevented from attending" ?
And what are those "rules" ? And what allows you to state the "others were completely beyond (McCann's) control" ?
This is like a cat and mouse game. They couldn't care less for Madeleine.
-
Does the AG speak of "not the fault of the McCanns" or of "recognising they were prevented from attending" ?
And what are those "rules" ? And what allows you to state the "others were completely beyond (McCann's) control" ?
This is like a cat and mouse game. They couldn't care less for Madeleine.
The 'rules' of the PJ were that unless everyone attended the reconstruction it would not take place.
Kate and Gerry did not refuse.
Jez Wilkins and the Tapas 7 did refuse. (and who could blame them)
Therefore the reconstruction could not take place.
The AG recognised that the McCanns were not responsible for that fact.
IMO
-
The 'rules' of the PJ were that unless everyone attended the reconstruction it would not take place.
Kate and Gerry did not refuse.
Jez Wilkins and the Tapas 7 did refuse. (and who could blame them)
Therefore the reconstruction could not take place.
The AG recognised that the McCanns were not responsible for that fact.
IMO
The McCanns were able to talk several of their friends into taking part in their own reconstruction, why didn't they use the same powers of persuasion when it really mattered ?
-
The 'rules' of the PJ were that unless everyone attended the reconstruction it would not take place.
Kate and Gerry did not refuse.
Jez Wilkins and the Tapas 7 did refuse. (and who could blame them)
Therefore the reconstruction could not take place.
The AG recognised that the McCanns were not responsible for that fact.
IMO
The McCanns didn't refuse, yes, but they couldn't, being arguidos, they had no choice.
Just one refusal was enough to cancel the reconstruction.
To be honest, I think the AG built them golden bridges, as, not Clausewitz but Sun Tzu (I think) said.
But nobody will believe the "no" of their trip companions horrified the McCanns. They were relieved, otherwise they would have publicly stated they were disillusioned.
-
Albertini wrote: Have you not read the last God knows how many pages?
I am afraid you may be under the illusion that if one repeates something enough times it becomes true. It does not.
China girl is quite correct - there is no onus on anyone to "prove their innocence" to the police. Nor, incidentally Redblossom, is there any requirement to answer any police questions, to provide alibis or indeed anything.
-
Albertini wrote: Have you not read the last God knows how many pages?
I am afraid you may be under the illusion that if one repeates something enough times it becomes true. It does not.
China girl is quite correct - there is no onus on anyone to "prove their innocence" to the police. Nor, incidentally Redblossom, is there any requirement to answer any police questions, to provide alibis or indeed anything.
Nothing like this was said. If one repeats a lie again and again, one will end up believing it is true. Nobody has the power to make things become true just by saying so. Only fairies.
If you're a suspect and refuse to answer questions and to produce an alibi, in Romano-Germanic law, you are brought to a inquiry judge whom it might appear easier to answer to. If you don't and the charges are sufficient, you go to court. You're then innocent until eventually been judged guilty.
-
The McCanns were able to talk several of their friends into taking part in their own reconstruction, why didn't they use the same powers of persuasion when it really mattered ?
Are you being serious? The Tapas 7 with the aid and blessing of the PJ were crucified in the Portuguese media and then they had to watch Amaral's attempts to fit Kate and Gerry up for Madeleine's disappearance. If they thought the reconstruction, (which apparently was not considered by the PJ to be at all necessary in the days following the abduction - when it really did matter) was really for the purpose of finding Madeleine - they would have been there like a shot.
But even their Lawyers could see what the score was and advised them all not to go. Anyone who thinks Jez Wilkins and the Tapas 7 should have had any trust whatsoever in the PJs motives regarding a reconstruction after what they had experienced and witnessed is living in cloud cuckoo land IMO.
-
Are you being serious? The Tapas 7 with the aid and blessing of the PJ were crucified in the Portuguese media and then they had to watch Amaral's attempts to fit Kate and Gerry up for Madeleine's disappearance. If they thought the reconstruction, (which apparently was not considered by the PJ to be at all necessary in the days following the abduction - when it really did matter) was really for the purpose of finding Madeleine - they would have been there like a shot.
But even their Lawyers could see what the score was and advised them all not to go. Anyone who thinks Jez Wilkins and the Tapas 7 should have had any trust whatsoever in the PJs motives regarding a reconstruction after what they had experienced and witnessed is living in cloud cuckoo land IMO.
But Rebelo was the new broom that swept the mess left by Amaral to the side, wasn't he ? What reason did they have for not trusting Rebelo ?
According to many supporters Rebelo was as good as Amaral was bad. He stopped the leaks to the newspapers, was, allegedly appalled at Amaral's handling of the case and reassured the McCanns and their friends when they voiced their concerns about the reconstruction, so what exactly did they have to be concerned about ?
-
And moreover the reconstruction was requested by the AG, the only authority entitled to decide and an authority the believers don't contest..
It is difficult for UK citizens to realize that : the UK police has much more power than the PT one, though it seems that now it has not as much as it had.
-
But Rebelo was the new broom that swept the mess left by Amaral to the side, wasn't he ? What reason did they have for not trusting Rebelo ?
According to many supporters Rebelo was as good as Amaral was bad. He stopped the leaks to the newspapers, was, allegedly appalled at Amaral's handling of the case and reassured the McCanns and their friends when they voiced their concerns about the reconstruction, so what exactly did they have to be concerned about ?
Yes Rebelo was a new broom, but he was stuck with Amaral's legacy. When the world is watching it's quite natural to want your country's police force to be seen in a good light which IMO is why they allowed Amaral to resign rather than be sacked. I don't think Rebelo necessarily stopped the leaks to the newspapers, that stopped automatically when Amaral was taken off the case.
IMO - and it is only my opinion, the PJ knew the Tapas 7 would never agree to return to Portugal after the way they had been treated at the hands of the PJ under Amaral, and also after seeing the attempts to pin the crime on the McCAnns. The PJ could not recover from the damage Amaral had done and knew they were on a loser, but if they could say ''Well we were prevented by the Tapas 7 and Jez Wilkins from conducting a reconstruction - so it's their fault not ours that the case could not be continued.'' then that was a face-saver for them. And to a large extent it worked as it meant the Final Report was able to be 'watered down' and criticism attached to both sides rather than just to one.
As I say, this is just my opinion, if you don't agree with it that's fine by me.
-
Nothing like this was said. If one repeats a lie again and again, one will end up believing it is true. Nobody has the power to make things become true just by saying so. Only fairies.
If you're a suspect and refuse to answer questions and to produce an alibi, in Romano-Germanic law, you are brought to a inquiry judge whom it might appear easier to answer to. If you don't and the charges are sufficient, you go to court. You're then innocent until eventually been judged guilty.
I have never lived in a "Germano-Romanic" jurisdiction, but the system you are describing is essentially the same, where the onus is the investigating authorities (whether police or enquiry judge) to produce the evidence leading to trial in court, not on the suspect to demonstrate innocence.
-
In an attempt to cut to the heart of the matter, A couple of brief questions for, in particular, Ann, Redblossom and Albertini. But of course all repsponses welcome
A person is arrested by the police, and taken to an interview room
(a) Is he obliged to answer whatever questions are put to him?
(b) does he have to give truthful answers
(c) What are the legal consquences to not answering their questions.
How would the answers differ under UK and Portuguese law?
Thanks
-
No i don't think he was guilty. His innocence was demonstrated by a third party confessing to the murder and that then "proved his innocence" and ruled him out as a suspect.
You are wrong albertini
Stagg was cleared and paid compensation before Napper confessed. He did not have to prove his innocence, the evidence provided did not prove his guilt.
-
I have never lived in a "Germano-Romanic" jurisdiction, but the system you are describing is essentially the same, where the onus is the investigating authorities (whether police or enquiry judge) to produce the evidence leading to trial in court, not on the suspect to demonstrate innocence.
It's the suspect's interest to get rid of a pain in the neck, if he's innocent. There's no reason why he shouldn't answer, unless he/she wants to protect someone.
How can a person be forced to answer ? There's no way under human civil rights. If the charges are heavy the lawyer (an arguido has to have a lawyer) will likely advise answering is better.
I mentioned already here a case which isn't so rare. A man suspect of paedophilia and with charges enough to be condemned. Though the lawyer advises that confessing the guilt could reduce the sentence, the accused insists, because he prefers the remaining doubt that always exists when the accused doesn't confess than having his children hearing him confess the crime.
An arguido isn't "accused". He's accused only if the MP decides to proceed to court. And then he's presumed innocent up to eventually proven guilty.
-
An arguido isn't "accused". He's accused only if the MP decides to proceed to court. And then he's presumed innocent up to eventually proven guilty.
Did the MP proceed to court, in the McCann's case?
-
You are wrong albertini
Stagg was cleared and paid compensation before Napper confessed. He did not have to prove his innocence, the evidence provided did not prove his guilt.
Nope, i'm not, you are.
See here for details:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7559026.stm
Compensation paid in August 2008, Napper charged November 2007.
-
No i don't think he was guilty. His innocence was demonstrated by a third party confessing to the murder and that then "proved his innocence" and ruled him out as a suspect.
____________________
When the case reached the Old Bailey Justice Ognall ruled that the police had shown "excessive zeal" and had tried to incriminate a suspect by "deceptive conduct of the grossest kind". He excluded the entrapment evidence and the prosecution withdrew its case. Stagg was formally acquitted in September 1994.
In July 2006, the Scotland Yard team interviewed a convicted sex killer for two days at Broadmoor Hospital in Berkshire.[24] The 40-year-old man diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic (and also as having Asperger syndrome)[25] had been held at the secure institution for more than ten years.[26]
Later reports revealed the man to be Robert Napper, the convicted killer of Samantha Bisset and her four-year-old daughter Jazmine, murdered in November 1993, 16 months after Nickell's murder.[27] On 28 November 2007, Napper was charged with Nickell's murder. He appeared at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on 4 December 2007,[28] where he was remanded until another hearing on 20 December 2007.[29] On 24 January 2008, Napper pleaded not guilty to Nickell's murder. He faced trial in November 2008.[30]
On 18 December 2008, at the Old Bailey, Napper pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Rachel Nickell on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Justice Griffiths Williams said that Napper would be held indefinitely at Broadmoor Hospital because he was "a very dangerous man". At the same time, Colin Stagg received a public apology from the police.
__________________
Albertini - It may help your credibility if you were able to substantiate your assertions with accurate, rather than made up, examples. Although I can see that this may be tricky.
Although your increasingly shrill cries of "As I have already told you" when challenged on matters of fact are becoming a trifle tiresome for those who do actually have day to day practical experience of the law.
May I suggest "put up or shut up?"
-
Albertini wrote: Have you not read the last God knows how many pages?
I am afraid you may be under the illusion that if one repeates something enough times it becomes true. It does not.
China girl is quite correct - there is no onus on anyone to "prove their innocence" to the police. Nor, incidentally Redblossom, is there any requirement to answer any police questions, to provide alibis or indeed anything.
I am under no illusion. I am correct and you have repeatedly tried to rebut my points using answers to a completely different issue (that is the presumption of innocence until guilty in a court as opposed to the nature of a suspect "ruling themselves out" of a police investigation by demonstrating ones innocence.)
As i have also repeatedly said, there is no onus for a suspect to provide information BUT they will still remain a suspect if they, through their right to remain silent, refuse to demonstrate their innocence to the investigation.
-
The McCanns can try to put "innocent" instead of toddler Madeleine's face on their T shirts, they'll convince nobody. Acts, not words, are needed. But they're not in jail, that's at least a good point. Asking more is day dreaming.
-
Nope, i'm not, you are.
See here for details:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7559026.stm
Compensation paid in August 2008, Napper charged November 2007.
you need to read the whole article
Colin Stagg, 44, who was cleared of the killing in 1994, said: "What pleases me even more than the money is that this is effectively a public apology."
Cleared in 1994
-
____________________
When the case reached the Old Bailey Justice Ognall ruled that the police had shown "excessive zeal" and had tried to incriminate a suspect by "deceptive conduct of the grossest kind". He excluded the entrapment evidence and the prosecution withdrew its case. Stagg was formally acquitted in September 1994.
In July 2006, the Scotland Yard team interviewed a convicted sex killer for two days at Broadmoor Hospital in Berkshire.[24] The 40-year-old man diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic (and also as having Asperger syndrome)[25] had been held at the secure institution for more than ten years.[26]
Later reports revealed the man to be Robert Napper, the convicted killer of Samantha Bisset and her four-year-old daughter Jazmine, murdered in November 1993, 16 months after Nickell's murder.[27] On 28 November 2007, Napper was charged with Nickell's murder. He appeared at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on 4 December 2007,[28] where he was remanded until another hearing on 20 December 2007.[29] On 24 January 2008, Napper pleaded not guilty to Nickell's murder. He faced trial in November 2008.[30]
On 18 December 2008, at the Old Bailey, Napper pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Rachel Nickell on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Justice Griffiths Williams said that Napper would be held indefinitely at Broadmoor Hospital because he was "a very dangerous man". At the same time, Colin Stagg received a public apology from the police.
__________________
Albertini - It may help your credibility if you were able to substantiate your assertions with accurate, rather than made up, examples. Although I can see that this may be tricky.
Although your increasingly shrill cries of "As I have already told you" when challenged on matters of fact are becoming a trifle tiresome for those who do actually have day to day practical experience of the law.
May I suggest "put up or shut up?"
Oh dear, i have no idea how you believe the actions of the police in attempting to find charges against Stagg change the core principle that a suspect remains a suspect until their innocence is proved.
The police's actions in attempting to find evidence against Stagg are immaterial to the fact that Stagg was a suspect until such time (and indeed after he was acquited) as his innocence was proven by Napper's confession.
Your quotation of the police's actions, bears no relevance to the issue at hand.
I am still quite sure you do not understand what is being said, which is why i am frequently having to repeat myself.
Your refusal to address the core issue and indeed refusal to try and tally the lack of evidence and non demonstration of innocence from the AG's report, is what is really getting tiresome here.
-
you need to read the whole article
Colin Stagg, 44, who was cleared of the killing in 1994, said: "What pleases me even more than the money is that this is effectively a public apology."
Cleared in 1994
You need to understand the article.
He was acquitted in Court 1994 BUT STILL remained a suspect in the police investigation, hence the Police shelvng the case. He was the only suspect they had at that time.
-
In an attempt to cut to the heart of the matter, A couple of brief questions for, in particular, Ann, Redblossom and Albertini. But of course all repsponses welcome
A person is arrested by the police, and taken to an interview room
(a) Is he obliged to answer whatever questions are put to him?
(b) does he have to give truthful answers
(c) What are the legal consquences to not answering their questions.
How would the answers differ under UK and Portuguese law?
Thanks
(a) Is he obliged to answer whatever questions are put to him? - No, but a suspects refusal to answer questions will ensure the suspect remains a suspect in the police investigation.
(b) does he have to give truthful answers - No but a refusal to give truthful answers will ensure the suspect remains a suspect in the police investigation
(c) What are the legal consquences to not answering their questions. - None but a suspects refusal to answer questions will ensure the suspect remains a suspect in the police investigation.
-
____________________
When the case reached the Old Bailey Justice Ognall ruled that the police had shown "excessive zeal" and had tried to incriminate a suspect by "deceptive conduct of the grossest kind". He excluded the entrapment evidence and the prosecution withdrew its case. Stagg was formally acquitted in September 1994.
In July 2006, the Scotland Yard team interviewed a convicted sex killer for two days at Broadmoor Hospital in Berkshire.[24] The 40-year-old man diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic (and also as having Asperger syndrome)[25] had been held at the secure institution for more than ten years.[26]
Later reports revealed the man to be Robert Napper, the convicted killer of Samantha Bisset and her four-year-old daughter Jazmine, murdered in November 1993, 16 months after Nickell's murder.[27] On 28 November 2007, Napper was charged with Nickell's murder. He appeared at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on 4 December 2007,[28] where he was remanded until another hearing on 20 December 2007.[29] On 24 January 2008, Napper pleaded not guilty to Nickell's murder. He faced trial in November 2008.[30]
On 18 December 2008, at the Old Bailey, Napper pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Rachel Nickell on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Justice Griffiths Williams said that Napper would be held indefinitely at Broadmoor Hospital because he was "a very dangerous man". At the same time, Colin Stagg received a public apology from the police.
__________________
Albertini - It may help your credibility if you were able to substantiate your assertions with accurate, rather than made up, examples. Although I can see that this may be tricky.
Although your increasingly shrill cries of "As I have already told you" when challenged on matters of fact are becoming a trifle tiresome for those who do actually have day to day practical experience of the law.
May I suggest "put up or shut up?"
Oh and in terms of "put up or shut up" i have given you:
1) The reason why the AG report said there was no evidence against the parents BUT that they had failed to demonstrate their innocence.
2) The Stephen Lawrence case as an example of my point.
3) The Rachel Nickell case as a further example of my arguments.
What exactly have you contributed to this thread to prove your point apart from some pompous old guff?
-
I have never lived in a "Germano-Romanic" jurisdiction, but the system you are describing is essentially the same, where the onus is the investigating authorities (whether police or enquiry judge) to produce the evidence leading to trial in court, not on the suspect to demonstrate innocence.
No you appear still not to be "getting it".
No one denies the police have to produce the evidence, but we aren't talking about that are we? We are talking about suspects "ruling themselves out" of the Police's investigation before it goes to a court.
I will ask you again how do you believe police rule out suspects in an investigation?
-
You need to understand the article.
He was acquitted in 1994 BUT STILL remained a suspect, hence the Police shelvng the case. He was the only suspect they had at that time.
So the fact he went to court and was acquitted did not show that he had " demonstrated his innocence". Yet you think the McCanns can "demonstrate their innocence by answering question". Your argument has no logic.
-
So the fact he went to court and was acquitted did not show that he had " demonstrated his innocence". Yet you think the McCanns can "demonstrate their innocence by answering question". Your argument has no logic.
It has pefect logic if you are able or want to see it.
Stagg was acquitted on the basis of the evidence presented to the court. Because the police had not gathered enough evidence to secure a conviction DID NOT MEAN that the Police thought he was no longer a suspect, but, put as simply as i can, that their evidence wasn't strong enough to turn their suspicions into a conviction.
A court case reviews the evidence presented. A police investigation focuses on suspects and ruling them out by the demonstration of innocence by either direct or indirect means.
I have not said the McCann's can "demonstrate their innocence by answering question". I have said that investigations use a multitude of means, often together, to rule someone out. One is obviously answering questions.
For example, and it's a really simple example, Kate Mccann's mother was not a suspect. Had she been questioned the Police would have said:
"Where were you on the 3rd May 2007".
She would have answered:
"In the UK".
Having verified that the police would have been able to rule out her mother because she had proven her innocence to the investigation by not being in Portugal on the night of the disappearance.
-
It has pefect logic if you are able or want to see it.
Stagg was acquitted on the basis of the evidence presented to the court. Because the police had not gathered enough evidence to secure a conviction DID NOT MEAN that the Police thought he was no longer a suspect, but, put as simply as i can, that their evidence wasn't strong enough to turn their suspicions into a conviction.
A court case reviews the evidence presented. A police investigation focuses on suspects and ruling them out by the demonstration of innocence by either direct or indirect means.
I have not said the McCann's can "demonstrate their innocence by answering question". I have said that investigations use a multitude of means, often together, to rule someone out. One is obviously answering questions.
For example, and it's a really simple example, Kate Mccann's mother was not a suspect. Had she been questioned the Police would have said:
"Where were you on the 3rd May 2007".
She would have answered:
"In the UK".
Having verified that the police would have been able to rule out her mother because she had proven her innocence to the investigation by not being in Portugal on the night of the disappearance.
So would you agree that Stagg was unable to prove his innocence, despite being put on trial for the murder. What more could he have done. it was impossible for him to prove his innocence.
-
It's the suspect's interest to get rid of a pain in the neck, if he's innocent. There's no reason why he shouldn't answer, unless he/she wants to protect someone.
How can a person be forced to answer ? There's no way under human civil rights. If the charges are heavy the lawyer (an arguido has to have a lawyer) will likely advise answering is better.
I mentioned already here a case which isn't so rare. A man suspect of paedophilia and with charges enough to be condemned. Though the lawyer advises that confessing the guilt could reduce the sentence, the accused insists, because he prefers the remaining doubt that always exists when the accused doesn't confess than having his children hearing him confess the crime.
An arguido isn't "accused". He's accused only if the MP decides to proceed to court. And then he's presumed innocent up to eventually proven guilty.
Did the MP proceed to court, in the McCann's case, Anne?
-
(a) Is he obliged to answer whatever questions are put to him? - No, but a suspects refusal to answer questions will ensure the suspect remains a suspect in the police investigation.
(b) does he have to give truthful answers - No but a refusal to give truthful answers will ensure the suspect remains a suspect in the police investigation
(c) What are the legal consquences to not answering their questions. - None but a suspects refusal to answer questions will ensure the suspect remains a suspect in the police investigation.
I agree with this, but would say b) No, but discrepancies and incoherences will ensure he remains a suspect in the police investigation.
-
The police were satisfied with Mr Murat's statements and answers, they weren't concerning the TP9, that's why the MP requested a reconstruction, etc. etc.
The unsolved mystery of Madeleine McCann's disappearance is darkened by the mystery of the reconstruction's refusal. This second mystery is far to be as famous as the first. At least yet.
-
But, Did the MP proceed to court, in the McCann's case, Anne?
-
A suspect starts out presumed innocent. The police (or investigating judge in those jurisdictions that have them) question the suspect and undertake whatever investigations are necessary to try to find evidence against the suspect. During the investigation the suspect is still, in legal terms, innocent. If the investigation officers ascertain sufficient evidence, the matter proceeds to trial, and the suspect then becomes the accused or defendant, and is still presumed innocent. S/he remains so throughout the trial until a verdict is reached.
At no time in this entire procedure - from first being considered a suspect up until the end of the trial - does this person ever lose the presumption of innocence, or ever required to "prove their innocence." The onus is on the police to produce the evidence, then on the prosecution to use this evidence to prove guilt.
Albertini seems to want to argue that the suspect loses the presumption of innocence during the investigative phase, but somehow regains it during a trial. This is not so, and it has been pointed out to him by a real, practicing legal professional, but Albertini thinks he knows better ....
-
The police were satisfied with Mr Murat's statements and answers, they weren't concerning the TP9, that's why the MP requested a reconstruction, etc. etc.
The unsolved mystery of Madeleine McCann's disappearance is darkened by the mystery of the reconstruction's refusal. This second mystery is far to be as famous as the first. At least yet.
The refusal of the T9 to attend a reconstruction is irrelevant to the presumed innocence of the Mccann parents. The case was shelved and the arguido status lifted because the investigating authorities failed to find any evidence of wrongdoing on the parents' part. The case could not proceed because of lack of evidence; not because the McCanns failed to demonstrate their innocence.
-
The "losing the possibility to prove what they claimed, their innocence" sounds slightly sarcastic and refers to a public image that counts a lot for the McCanns (cf. "Madeleine", cf. Mr McCann's erased blog).
After all the AG's request was rejected..
It would be more interesting to list, in the AG's report, all the points that remained unexplained. There are quite a few.
-
The refusal of the T9 to attend a reconstruction is irrelevant to the presumed innocence of the Mccann parents. The case was shelved and the arguido status lifted because the investigating authorities failed to find any evidence of wrongdoing on the parents' part. The case could not proceed because of lack of evidence; not because the McCanns failed to demonstrate their innocence.
Read the AG's report, Chinagirl, and you will see underlined many obscure points that would have been investigated, had they solicited a inquiry.
They didn't make that choice : un bon tiens vaut mieux que deux tu l'auras. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
-
I'm aware Conan Doyle based his character, Sherlock Holmes, on one of the first SY's inspectors, Mr Whicher.
Allow me to correct you, Doyle based Sherlock Holmes on Doctor Joseph Bell, a surgeon and teacher he had studied with while attending Edinburgh University. Dr. Bell had the uncanny ability to reveal a patient's symptoms, diagnose patients and report on their origins before they would speak a word to him about their afflictions. Sir Henry Littlejohn, who taught forensic medicine to Doyle also made a large impression and contributed to the development of Holmes' character. Puffin
-
Allow me to correct you, Doyle based Sherlock Holmes on Doctor Joseph Bell, a surgeon and teacher he had studied with while attending Edinburgh University. Dr. Bell had the uncanny ability to reveal a patient's symptoms, diagnose patients and report on their origins before they would speak a word to him about their afflictions. Sir Henry Littlejohn, who taught forensic medicine to Doyle also made a large impression and contributed to the development of Holmes' character. Puffin
Many thanks for these informations, Puffin. I wasn't suggesting Mr Whicher was the only inspiration source, but he was one, and particularly due to his remarkable perspicacity in the Road Hill House murder.
-
Allow me to correct you, Doyle based Sherlock Holmes on Doctor Joseph Bell, a surgeon and teacher he had studied with while attending Edinburgh University. Dr. Bell had the uncanny ability to reveal a patient's symptoms, diagnose patients and report on their origins before they would speak a word to him about their afflictions. Sir Henry Littlejohn, who taught forensic medicine to Doyle also made a large impression and contributed to the development of Holmes' character. Puffin
Interesting info - cheers!
-
The refusal of the T9 to attend a reconstruction is irrelevant to the presumed innocence of the Mccann parents. The case was shelved and the arguido status lifted because the investigating authorities failed to find any evidence of wrongdoing on the parents' part. The case could not proceed because of lack of evidence; not because the McCanns failed to demonstrate their innocence.
But the AG report specfically stated they failed to demonstrate their innocence.
How do you explain that?
-
A suspect starts out presumed innocent. The police (or investigating judge in those jurisdictions that have them) question the suspect and undertake whatever investigations are necessary to try to find evidence against the suspect. During the investigation the suspect is still, in legal terms, innocent. If the investigation officers ascertain sufficient evidence, the matter proceeds to trial, and the suspect then becomes the accused or defendant, and is still presumed innocent. S/he remains so throughout the trial until a verdict is reached.
At no time in this entire procedure - from first being considered a suspect up until the end of the trial - does this person ever lose the presumption of innocence, or ever required to "prove their innocence." The onus is on the police to produce the evidence, then on the prosecution to use this evidence to prove guilt.
Albertini seems to want to argue that the suspect loses the presumption of innocence during the investigative phase, but somehow regains it during a trial. This is not so, and it has been pointed out to him by a real, practicing legal professional, but Albertini thinks he knows better ....
Er no. And what was it you said the other day about insults?
Once again you arguing an argument i have not made about a legal preumption of innocence?
One question for you to answer which may help us move things along:
How are suspects ruled out in crimes by an investigation?
-
But the AG report specfically stated they failed to demonstrate their innocence.
How do you explain that?
the AG report is ridiculous. How could the McCanns have proved their innocence, its impossible, as it was for Stagg.
Even if the McCanns went to court and were found not guilty that would not prove their innocence.
-
So would you agree that Stagg was unable to prove his innocence, despite being put on trial for the murder. What more could he have done. it was impossible for him to prove his innocence.
Because then the police have to build up sufficient evidence which will prove beyond reasonable doubt that Stagg was the perpetratorand take it to a court which would presume he was innocent until proven guilty.
-
The investigation was interrupted due to end up Mr Murat's arguido status. By no way had been collected enough evidence for a State vs McCanns. The McCanns had the choice to request an inquiry (which, if innocent, could prove them so) or to quit. Had they been suspected to kill their daughter, this option wouldn't have existed, the upper magistrate would have ordered the contradictory inquiry.
-
the AG report is ridiculous. How could the McCanns have proved their innocence, its impossible, as it was for Stagg.
So the part which says there is no evidence against them is also ridiculous? Or are you cherry picking the bits which you feel are ridiculous to fit around your pre conceived idea of the McCann's?
Even if the McCanns went to court and were found not guilty that would not prove their innocence.
To the police, yes no doubt based on the evidence collected. They would remain suspects until verifiable information "ruled them out" or strenghtend the case against them.
Just like Colin Stagg was and just like the Lawrence killers were.
-
Many thanks for these informations, Puffin. I wasn't suggesting Mr Whicher was the only inspiration source, but he was one, and particularly due to his remarkable perspicacity in the Road Hill House murder.
Ah, the Constance Kent case. She was guilty, later confessing she killed her little half-brother. But I do not remember Whicher's name ever coming up as being an influence on Conan Doyle, whereas Dr Bell was. Oh, maybe that was claime in the recent TV series? Puffin
-
Even if the McCanns went to court and were found not guilty that would not prove their innocence.
You're kidding. What are courts for ? Mainly to put an end to cases. Our societies can't afford dragging old cold cases, this is too much a weight and undermines dynamism.
If someone can't be judged for lack of sufficient evidence, a court is of no use at all.
You can lament someone will have for ever a shadow on his/her head, but there's no remedy, except for sticking to the truth as much as you can. And if you're innocent, fortunately it's usually not a problem.
-
I'm afraid they're many.
Think outside the box Anne. Which area have they never searched near Luz?
-
Ah, the Constance Kent case. She was guilty, later confessing she killed her little half-brother. But I do not remember Whicher's name ever coming up as being an influence on Conan Doyle, whereas Dr Bell was. Oh, maybe that was claime in the recent TV series? Puffin
I don't know, I don't have TV. But I read the very interesting book of Kate Summerscale.
www.mrwhicher.com
-
So the part which says there is no evidence against them is also ridiculous? Or are you cherry picking the bits which you feel are ridiculous to fit around your pre conceived idea of the McCann's?
To the police, yes no doubt based on the evidence collected. They would remain suspects until verifiable information "ruled them out" or strenghtend the case against them.
Just like Colin Stagg was and just like the Lawrence killers were.
so you agree that the McCanns cannot prove their innocence and therefore to expect them to is ridiculous.
I have no preconceived idea re the McCanns. All my ideas are post conceived, ie based on what I have heard re the case
-
Think outside the box Anne. Which area have they never searched near Luz?
Is it some scavenger hunt ?
I know of one person who searched in a place where nobody else did.
-
So the part which says there is no evidence against them is also ridiculous? Or are you cherry picking the bits which you feel are ridiculous to fit around your pre conceived idea of the McCann's?
To the police, yes no doubt based on the evidence collected. They would remain suspects until verifiable information "ruled them out" or strenghtend the case against them.
Just like Colin Stagg was and just like the Lawrence killers were.
Sorry Albertini, you cannot have it both ways.
In order to "prove innocence" ,if such a thing were possible in absolute terms, it first needs to be establish "innocentof what". Even in the face of The PP statement said no evidence of a crime. Madeleine is missing, and it would appear to the authorites that the overwhelmingly likely cause is abduction.
The Portugese police have demonstrably failed to provide any actual evidence against them, they have at no stage been arrested or charged, and have not appeared in court. So perhaps you could enlighten us all as to what the McCanns are supposed to "prove their innocence" of?
It would appear that you have a vested interest in convincing members of this forum that the McCanns are still suspects. Although god know what you agenda is.
-
I don't know, I don't have TV. But I read the very interesting book of Kate Summerscale.
www.mrwhicher.com
That was the book the TV Program was based on. Although I have heard of Whicher, I cannot remember his name being mentioned in the Sherlock Holmes Society archives. I may be wrong, but I think it would have stuck in my mind as I am a confirmed Holmes fan.
-
Sorry Albertini, you cannot have it both ways.
Have what both ways?
In order to "prove innocence" ,if such a thing were possible in absolute terms,
Eminently possible. The first step towards that was, as the AG report stated, the reconstruction, which their friends officially vetoed (in consultation with the whole group) and via their press spokesman's words that their lawyers would block the Mccann's return to Portugal.
it first needs to be establish "innocentof what". Even in the face of The PP statement said no evidence of a crime.
How obtuse! Clearly by the very fact that a child has gone missing a crime has been committed.
Madeleine is missing, and it would appear to the authorities that the overwhelmingly likely cause is abduction.
Not the authorities in Portugal.
The Portuguese police have demonstrably failed to provide any actual evidence against them, they have at no stage been arrested or charged, and have not appeared in court. So perhaps you could enlighten us all as to what the McCanns are supposed to "prove their innocence" of?
They need to prove their innocence to the investigators that they were not involved in the disappearance of the child.
No evidence or indeed lack of evidence is NOT proof of innocence. See the convicted men in the Lawrence case for reference.
Are you familiar with this phrase:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
It would appear that you have a vested interest in convincing members of this forum that the McCanns are still suspects. Although god know what you agenda is.
You remain both pompous and condescending and it's hugely irritating because, despite your attempts at superiority in your posts, you do not appear to have the intellectual capacity to back it up, prove your point nor indeed rebut mine.
It is not my fault you will not accept fairly simple and legitimate reasoning which has been given which explains the AG's report (coupled with the Assistant Chief Constable Of Leicestershire's own comments in the family Court), which i have supported with two example cases.
I have no agenda other than ensuring the truth of the affair comes out. I am not going to debate on the subject and have people with pre conceived ideas about the innocence of the parents misinterpret or blatantly mislead over the evidence of the AG's report and the investigative principles which underpin it, in order to defend their beliefs.
-
The refusal of the T9 to attend a reconstruction is irrelevant to the presumed innocence of the Mccann parents.
it is highly relevant and is referred to in the AG' report specifically and explicitly as such:
Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
The case was shelved and the arguido status lifted because the investigating authorities failed to find any evidence of wrongdoing on the parents' part.
Correct. But that must be caveated by the fact that the AG said the investigation was "disturbed", which means it was incomplete.
It states quite clearly it was disturbed specifcally because of the refusal of the group to participate in the reconstruction.
The case could not proceed because of lack of evidence; not because the McCanns failed to demonstrate their innocence.
The case could not proceed because of the refusal to participate in the reconstruction. There were no other "diligences" open to the PJ at that time other than the reconstruction.
Howver as is clear in the archving report the Mccann's did indeed fail to demonstrate their innocence but that is something which is not mutually exlusive to a lack of evidece.
There can be no evidence of a crime being committed by suspects BUT they can still fail to demonstrate their innocence.
If it was not possible to have both why do you think both were in the report?
-
Excellent rebuttal skills! Keep up the good work!
8((()*/
(coupled with the Assistant Chief Constable Of Leicestershire's own comments in the family Court)
If you are interested in truth why do you not make it clear that the Assistant Chief Constable made certain remarks while the McCanns were still arguidos and before the files were released?
That is the truth ...
-
Its all there in the files but Amaral couldnt finish the job because of political interference.
Sorry, I can't go with the political interference claim. I think we only have Amaral's "word" for this?
-
(coupled with the Assistant Chief Constable Of Leicestershire's own comments in the family Court)
If you are interested in truth why do you not make it clear that the Assistant Chief Constable made certain remarks while the McCanns were still arguidos and before the files were released?
That is the truth ...
Not this again, we've gone over this already.
The comment was made on 7th July 2008 and the archiving report was released on the 21st July 2008.
The archiving report paragraph stating the McCann's failure to demonstrate their innocence is exactly the same as the Assistant Chief Constable's assertion.
They are saying the same thing!
In relation to the released files, Leicestershire Police had access to all the info as the investigation proceded.
This is apparent from the contents of the files itself with the involvment of amongst others Bob Small and Stu Prior along with specific menions in the AG's report itself:
Shortly after the beginning of the investigation, continuous relationships were created with the Leicestershire Constabulary which sent, in support, various of their members to Portugal, having, equally, the PJ sending employees to the UK.
It is emphasized, specifically, that the level of cooperation and of understanding between the PJ and the Leicestershire Constabulary achieved, always, very high levels, united in the common pursuit of the missing child and the truth.
The PJ, as in probably no other investigation in Portugal, withheld no effort, in the sense of providing exceptional technical means, manpower and financing towards the discovery of the child and the determination of the truth of the facts, having been completely accompanied in this effort by the Leicestershire Constabulary, the police department headquartered in the city of Leicestershire, from where most of the elements of the holiday group are from.
- The obliging cooperation and commitment of Police forces from many countries, with a very special mention for the British police entities, was counted upon;
No evidence came to light between the 7th and 21st which demonstrated the parent's innocence and do you really believe if it did this evidence could be digested and then a report of this magnitude could be written up in a sub two week timeframe?
There is no valid reason to mention the two week difference because the ACC and the Archiving report make the same basic point about the Mccann's not proving their innocence!
-
Excellent rebuttal skills! Keep up the good work!
8((()*/
Less is more.
Are the McCanns still "Arguidos"?
-
Less is more.
Are the McCanns still "Arguidos"?
No, and they could not be in a shelved investigation.
But they are still suspects in the child's disappearance in Portugal.
Following your less is more lead here's a question for you......
How do suspects rule themselves out or eliminate themselves from a police enquiry?
-
No, and they could not be in a shelved investigation.
But they are still suspects in the child's disappearance in Portugal.
Following your less is more lead here's a question for you......
How do suspects rule themselves out or eliminate themselves from a police enquiry?
Once a professional took over, and realised what a hash his predecessor had made, quite easily. The PJ investigated the McCanns, found they had no evidence of any value and the McCanns were released from their Arguido status and therefore riuled out.
If they were still "suspects" then they would either still be arguidos pending charge or would have been charged.
-
Once a professional took over, and realised what a hash his predecessor had made, quite easily. The PJ investigated the McCanns, found they had no evidence of any value and the McCanns were released from their Arguido status and therefore riuled out.
If they were still "suspects" then they would either still be arguidos pending charge or would have been charged.
So using this logic:
The PJ investigated the McCanns, found they had no evidence of any value and the McCanns were released from their Arguido status and therefore riuled out.
Were the killer's of Stephen Lawrence ruled out as suspects in 1993? After all they were not convicted then?
If they were still "suspects" then they would either still be arguidos pending charge or would have been charged.
Please explain this comment in relation to the Lawrence killer's cited above who were "cleared" in 1993 but subsequently convicted in 2012.
Your logic does not explain this case.
-
Less is more.
Are the McCanns still "Arguidos"?
You're kidding. What are courts for ? To put an end to cases. Societies can't afford dragging old cold cases that undermine their dynamism.
Bringing suspects to courts without enough evidence is time and money consuming in vain.
The McCanns had various opportunities, the first was the reconstruction, the second an inquiry, to clean their name from any involvement. They were given a choice because there was no evidence of their killing their child. Otherwise the magistrate on top of the AG would have required a contradictory inquiry. No doubt about that.
-
so you agree that the McCanns cannot prove their innocence and therefore to expect them to is ridiculous.
I have no preconceived idea re the McCanns. All my ideas are post conceived, ie based on what I have heard re the case
I agree that the Mccann's innocence has not been proven hence the Assistant Chief Constable's comments coupled with the AG report.
From your posts all i can see, like most mcCann supporters, is that all your post conceived ideas are based squarely on the basis that the mccann's are innocent, and all subsequent ideas have to work around that over arching ideology
-
I agree that the Mccann's innocence has not been proven hence the Assistant Chief Constable's comments coupled with the AG report.
From your posts all i can see, like most mcCann supporters, is that all your post conceived ideas are based squarely on the basis that the mccann's are innocent, and all subsequent ideas have to work around that over arching ideology
Could you tell me in what context the Asst CC made that comment please.. I have looked but can't find it.
-
I'm happy with the believers insisting that the McCanns are innocent. I'm happy too with the idea Madeleine was abducted. The trouble is the believers' refusal to examine another window of opportunity for the abduction, whereas the Smiths' carrier sounds much more like the right one.
-
Could you tell me in what context the Asst CC made that comment please.. I have looked but can't find it.
On July 7 2008 Mrs Justice Hogg gave judgement in the Family Division of the High Court regarding the attempt by Kate & Gerry McCann to gain access to all the Leicester Police documents regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
The judgement was by agreement between the parties and was made in open court.
M/S Kate McCann in her book Madeleine has now provided an excerpt from the official submission of Leicester Police to the court regarding the matter and outlining the reasons why they could not agree to provide the documents. Signed by the assistant chief constable of Leicestershire it runs:
"While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance."
-
Once a professional took over, and realised what a hash his predecessor had made, quite easily. The PJ investigated the McCanns, found they had no evidence of any value and the McCanns were released from their Arguido status and therefore riuled out.
If they were still "suspects" then they would either still be arguidos pending charge or would have been charged.
To add....
Complete and utter hogwash, which has been debunked umpteen times and supported with examples in this thread.
But you keep thinking that's the case if it helps.
The rest of us know the reality.
-
So using this logic:
Were the killer's of Stephen Lawrence ruled out as suspects in 1993? After all they were not convicted then?
Please explain this comment in relation to the Lawrence killer's cited above who were "cleared" in 1993 but subsequently convicted in 2012.
Your logic does not explain this case.
I think you will need to explain why you think the two cases have any parallel. I can see no similairity whatever.
The fact that the PJ have not managed to find any evidence against the McCanns and they have been released from auguido status is teh fatal falw in your arugument.
I happily accept that you may be utterly convinced that the McCanns are still suspects in the eyes of the Portuguese ploice and possibly some members of the judiciary, and that some members here support that argument. It is is free world, and you are entitled to your opinon.
By the same token, I assume that you will allow that I choose to interpet the facts differently. You do seem to have a problem with posters here disagreeing with you.
-
I'm happy with the believers insisting that the McCanns are innocent. I'm happy too with the idea Madeleine was abducted. The trouble is the believers' refusal to examine another window of opportunity for the abduction, whereas the Smiths' carrier sounds much more like the right one.
Just how does the Smiths carrier sound better than Janes carrier?
Sensible reasons please
-
I think you will need to explain why you think the two cases have any parallel. I can see no similairity whatever.
Really? The parallels in terms of what we are discussing i would have thought are obvious.
Ok then in a nutshell.
The initial suspects in the Lawrence case were not taken to court because there was no evidence against them (according to the police) at that time that could have been presented to a court.
Despite this they still remained suspects in terms of the investigation because the police did not look for anyone else and shelved the case.
Now using your logic you would say that they have been "cleared" but that is not the case becuase they were later convicted of the crime.
How can you be "cleared" and then later convicted?
So it is common practice for suspects to remain as suspects if and despite there being no evidence against them at the point of the case being shelved.
The same remains with the McCann's in Portugal. There was no evidence gathered according to the prosecutor that the Mccann's had committed a crime but at the same time they had not proven they were innocent to the investigation. The case was shelved and remains at that very same point in Portugal. If new evidence had come to light showing the McCann's innocence the case would have been reopened.
The important point here is that the investigation was incomplete and therefore the PJ were prevented from completing it by the refusal of the group to take part in the reconstruction.
So an incomplete investigation had not gathered evidence in the prosecutor's view that the Mccann's had committed a crime.
The fact that the PJ have not managed to find any evidence against the McCanns and they have been released from auguido status is teh fatal falw in your arugument.
Not at all. It is the fatal flaw in your understanding of my argument.
As per the Lawrence case it took 19 years to find sufficient evidence against the perpetrators and for them to be convicted.
19 years! So it is clear from that case the lack of evidence did not stop them being suspects and they were not cleared.
The Arguido status is a formal suspect status. I believe it can only be applied to someone for a specific length of time.
Given the group's refusal to participate in the reconstruction, the investigation was "disturbed" and there was no prospect of gathering sufficient evidence to put before a court, hence the shelving and removal of Arguido status.
That does not change the fact that the Mccann's are still "suspects" in Portugal (given they have been unable to demonstrate their innocence) but not formal suspects as the law does not allow it.
In exactly the same way that the Lawrence killers remained suspects for the 19 years between the murder and their conviction.
I happily accept that you may be utterly convinced that the McCanns are still suspects in the eyes of the Portuguese ploice and possibly some members of the judiciary, and that some members here support that argument. It is is free world, and you are entitled to your opinon.
By the same token, I assume that you will allow that I choose to interpet the facts differently. You do seem to have a problem with posters here disagreeing with you.
No i look at the facts, which were stated in the Family Court and by the Ag report and i have explained ad infinitum the reasons for the comments regarding demonstrating innocence and i have given you example cases which illustrate my reasoning.
You on the other hand have not been able to rebut my assertions nor provide any evidence or examples to support your assertion.
So i have no problem in people having different opinions.
I have a problem when people bring false and misleading opinions which are not supported by facts or evidence simply so they can cling to the belief that the McCann's are innocent.
I have a problem with people when presented with logic and reasoning, and examples and evidence who refuse to change their beliefs but are not able to support said beliefs and opinions with facts and evidence.
-
But the AG report specfically stated they failed to demonstrate their innocence.
How do you explain that?
I will explain it. the AG report is quite consistent, it was written by an idiot.
Any idiot could see that the McCanns had no criminal part in Maddies fate and only an idiot would expect anyone to have to prove their innocence.
-
Do you really want to suggest a parallel? Especially given that the initial investigation was not exactly the Met's finest hour. And the suspects were a racist gang of thugs. Who it seems were possibly "protected " by the police because they were white and the victim was black. I am not sure the PJ would welcome such a comparison, but so be it.
In the Lawrence case, the five suspects were arrested after a fortnight. The charges were dropped a couple of months later after the CPS cited "insufficient evidence". A subsequent private prosecution also failed. The inquest jury returned a verdict after 30 minutes' deliberation of unlawful killing "in a completely unprovoked racist attack by five white youths"; this finding went beyond the bounds of their instructions.
It was suggested during the course of the Lawrence enquiry that the murder was racially motivated and that Lawrence was killed because he was black, and that the handling of the case by the police and Crown Prosecution Service was affected by issues of race. A public inquiry was held in 1998,[4] headed by Sir William Macpherson, that examined the original Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) investigation and concluded that the force was "institutionally racist"
A BBC investigation alleged that the murder inquiry's Det. Sgt. John Davidson had taken money from known drug smuggler Clifford Norris, the father of David Norris, a chief suspect in the investigation.[67] Neil Putnam, a former corrupt police detective turned whistleblower, told a BBC investigation that Clifford Norris was paying Mr Davidson to obstruct the case and to protect the suspects.
You are correct that eventually two of the initial suspects were convicted.
In the McCann case, the "suspects" did not even reach the stage of being arrested. And indeed were only constitued arguidos because by mid September an upcome change in the regulations would have raised the bar significantly (i.e. that there would actually need to be evidence in order for the police to make an arguido).
Attorney-general Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro said the 14-month investigation had uncovered no evidence of a crime by any of the suspects or "arguidos".
You say: I have a problem when people bring false and misleading opinions which are not supported by facts or evidence simply so they can cling to the belief that the McCann's are innocent.
I have a problem with people when presented with logic and reasoning, and examples and evidence who refuse to change their beliefs but are not able to support said beliefs and opinions with facts and evidence.
That, I am afraid, exists only in your opinion. My interpetation of the facts, and of the law differ from yours. The McCanns are under no obligation to "prove their innocence".
If you have a problem with that, then it is your problem.
-
Attorney-general Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro said the 14-month investigation had uncovered no evidence of a crime by any of the suspects or "arguidos".
Yes but you have to take into account the whole report and if you do so you'll see that there are many obscure points left. Like, for example, the mystery of the twins' deep sleep that both "parts" contemplated. An inquiry would have seriously investigated this, calling experts.
-
Yes but you have to take into account the whole report and if you do so you'll see that there are many obscure points left. Like, for example, the mystery of the twins' deep sleep that both "parts" contemplated. An inquiry would have seriously investigated this, calling experts.
Well why didn't they do it?
-
Its all there in the files but Amaral couldnt finish the job because of political interference.
I have also reported this post for being factually incorrect.
-
I reported this comment several hours ago, on the grounds that this is being stated as a categorial fact, which is untrue. However, as it is still showing, I assume it's been deemed acceptable.
Forum rules state: "You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false....." The post appears to breach this rule.
Perhaps it is considered lèse-majesté to report a moderator?
Seems like it depends on, who does the postings Chinagirl. Its getting a joke 8**8:/:
-
Madeleine died on 3 may 2007.
This is not a fact as you seem to believe.
If you read the files to the conclusion then you would realise that the consensus after the full investigation, and not just the early part of the investigation which Amaral coordinated before being booted off the case for blabbing to the press (read his book where he tells us this as fact), was that this was simply one possibility which was deemed at the time more likely than others.
Your post is therefore incorrect.
I have also reported the post as inaccurate and asked why such inaccurate posts are allowed to stand for so long as they make a mockery of the desire to seek truth.
-
I will explain it. the AG report is quite consistent, it was written by an idiot.
Any idiot could see that the McCanns had no criminal part in Maddies fate and only an idiot would expect anyone to have to prove their innocence.
Personal opinion combined with wishful thinking has no place here.
-
Quote from: davel on July 27, 2013, 08:56:01 PM
I will explain it. the AG report is quite consistent, it was written by an idiot.
Any idiot could see that the McCanns had no criminal part in Maddies fate and only an idiot would expect anyone to have to prove their innocence.
only an idiot would expect anyone to have to prove their innocence I totally agree with that ... and The Law does.
And there was no chance for the Mccanns to have been criminally involved in Madeleines fate, that I can find. Not one single anti / [ censored word ] / sceptic has brought a jot of evidence that the Mccanns were criminally involved in any way.
Amaral had no evidence at all.
The Mccanns are innocent. Guilt must be proven for them to be otherwise.
And there is not a single piece of evidence against them
The Mccanns are innocent
-
Do you really want to suggest a parallel? Especially given that the initial investigation was not exactly the Met's finest hour. And the suspects were a racist gang of thugs. Who it seems were possibly "protected " by the police because they were white and the victim was black. I am not sure the PJ would welcome such a comparison, but so be it.
In the Lawrence case, the five suspects were arrested after a fortnight. The charges were dropped a couple of months later after the CPS cited "insufficient evidence". A subsequent private prosecution also failed. The inquest jury returned a verdict after 30 minutes' deliberation of unlawful killing "in a completely unprovoked racist attack by five white youths"; this finding went beyond the bounds of their instructions.
It was suggested during the course of the Lawrence enquiry that the murder was racially motivated and that Lawrence was killed because he was black, and that the handling of the case by the police and Crown Prosecution Service was affected by issues of race. A public inquiry was held in 1998,[4] headed by Sir William Macpherson, that examined the original Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) investigation and concluded that the force was "institutionally racist"
A BBC investigation alleged that the murder inquiry's Det. Sgt. John Davidson had taken money from known drug smuggler Clifford Norris, the father of David Norris, a chief suspect in the investigation.[67] Neil Putnam, a former corrupt police detective turned whistleblower, told a BBC investigation that Clifford Norris was paying Mr Davidson to obstruct the case and to protect the suspects.
You are correct that eventually two of the initial suspects were convicted.
In the McCann case, the "suspects" did not even reach the stage of being arrested. And indeed were only constitued arguidos because by mid September an upcome change in the regulations would have raised the bar significantly (i.e. that there would actually need to be evidence in order for the police to make an arguido).
Attorney-general Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro said the 14-month investigation had uncovered no evidence of a crime by any of the suspects or "arguidos".
You say: I have a problem when people bring false and misleading opinions which are not supported by facts or evidence simply so they can cling to the belief that the McCann's are innocent.
I have a problem with people when presented with logic and reasoning, and examples and evidence who refuse to change their beliefs but are not able to support said beliefs and opinions with facts and evidence.
That, I am afraid, exists only in your opinion. My interpetation of the facts, and of the law differ from yours. The McCanns are under no obligation to "prove their innocence".
If you have a problem with that, then it is your problem.
I have no idea why you think quoting superflous background info to the Lawrence case either counters my argument or indeed strengthens yours.
The detail of the case is irrelevant in the context of our discussion.
What is important is the broader outline of that case to provide demonstrative evidence to counter your false assumption that when there is no evidence to bring a suspect to court they are automatically "cleared".
As i pointed out there was no evidence against the Lawrence suspects, therefore under your assertion, they were "cleared".
However they were found guilty 19 years later.
The pertinent question which you have avoided like the plague is how your theory stacks up in the Lawrence case, when they were convicted of the crime after, using your theory, being cleared in 1993?
The facts of that case are that the lack of evidence against them did not clear them because subsequently they were convicted of the crime.
And that boils down to the fact that only a court can clear someone, not the police.
The real fact of the matter is that the Prosecutor's report said there was no evidence but they had not demonstrated their innocence, supported by the Assistant Cheif Constable of Leicestershire's statement in court.
And that is because whilst there was no evidence found in the incomplete investigation there was no evidence which specfically ruled them out of involvement either.
You claim to understand the law yet you are not only saying i am wrong, you are also saying that:
The Public Proescutor who wrote the report ( A professional lawyer)
The Portuguese Attorney General who validated the report (Portugal's most senior lawyer)
The Assistant Chief Constable Of Leicestershire and their lawyers who advised them
Lord Justice Hogg (who allowed the comments to be made in court)
Are all wrong and all know less about the law than you do.
So forgive me if appear not to be taking no for an answer but clearly your knoweldge of the law is less than the above mentioned legal and Judicial professionals who all stated the same.
You are free to believe what you want but when it is so manifestly wrong don't expeoct opthers to simply accept it as fact.
-
I will explain it. the AG report is quite consistent, it was written by an idiot.
Any idiot could see that the McCanns had no criminal part in Maddies fate and only an idiot would expect anyone to have to prove their innocence.
Quote from: davel on July 27, 2013, 08:56:01 PM
only an idiot would expect anyone to have to prove their innocence I totally agree with that ... and The Law does.
And there was no chance for the Mccanns to have been criminally involved in Madeleines fate, that I can find. Not one single anti / [ censored word ] / sceptic has brought a jot of evidence that the Mccanns were criminally involved in any way.
Amaral had no evidence at all.
So what you are both saying, as i have stated in another post is that, legally, you two forum posters know more about the Law and how it works than:
The Public Prosecutor who wrote the report ( A professional lawyer)
The Portuguese Attorney General who validated the report (Portugal's most senior lawyer)
The Assistant Chief Constable Of Leicestershire and their lawyers who advised them
Lord Justice Hogg (who allowed the comments to be made in court)
Do you really think that if the prosecutor was wrong (or to use terms "an idiot") on such a fundamental and basic point of Law, the Attorney General Of Portugal, the most senior lawyer in Portugal, would have allowed such a manifestly untrue paragraph to be put in the report which he accepted?
Do you think the Assistant Chief Constable Of Leicestershire would have been allowed to make that comment in court either by his own lawyers or the Judge?
Or, as is actually the case, these legal professionals are right and you two (and other supporters of the McCann's) are simply wrong on this point either through your inability to understand it or because you deliberately want to misconstrue it to support your pre conceived beliefs in the McCann's?
-
Albertini states
And that boils down to the fact that only a court can clear someone, not the police
You just don't understand. A court cannot clear someone as you yourself has stated. You also seem to think that the Portuguese statements saying that the McCanns had not taken the opportunity to clear themselves is the same as the Leicester statement saying they may or may not be involved in the crime. Leicester stated a fact, Portugal stated a stupid opinion.
Just again so it is clear...It would be impossible for the McCanns to prove their innocence..... impossible
As you stated yourself, even though Stagg was acquitted by the court he was not found to be innocent until someone else confessed.
-
So what you are both saying, as i have stated in another post is that, legally, you two forum posters know more about the Law and how it works than:
The Public Prosecutor who wrote the report ( A professional lawyer)
The Portuguese Attorney General who validated the report (Portugal's most senior lawyer)
The Assistant Chief Constable Of Leicestershire and their lawyers who advised them
Lord Justice Hogg (who allowed the comments to be made in court)
Do you really think that if the prosecutor was wrong (or to use terms "an idiot") on such a fundamental and basic point of Law, the Attorney General Of Portugal, the most senior lawyer in Portugal, would have allowed such a manifestly untrue paragraph to be put in the report which he accepted?
Do you think the Assistant Chief Constable Of Leicestershire would have been allowed to make that comment in court either by his own lawyers or the Judge?
Or, as is actually the case, these legal professionals are right and you two (and other supporters of the McCann's) are simply wrong on this point either through your inability to understand it or because you deliberately want to misconstrue it to support your pre conceived beliefs in the McCann's?
There is no debate to be had. Eddie reacted to a coconut shell
This is the relevant cite from the Operation Haven report of Wiltshire Police, to which I will link in an edit:
OFFICER X
and others, CO POWER states ‘my
understanding of the rules is that we should not
commit to non budgeted expenditure until the
proposition is passed by the States’.
X completes X report in respect of
Exhibit JAR/6. In it X states that the sample was
not bone and not human, appearing instead to be
more like part of a large seed casing or part of
something like a small piece of coconut.
http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf
-
Quote from: davel on July 27, 2013, 08:56:01 PM
only an idiot would expect anyone to have to prove their innocence I totally agree with that ... and The Law does.
And there was no chance for the Mccanns to have been criminally involved in Madeleines fate, that I can find. Not one single anti / [ censored word ] / sceptic has brought a jot of evidence that the Mccanns were criminally involved in any way.
Amaral had no evidence at all.
The Mccanns are innocent. Guilt must be proven for them to be otherwise.
And there is not a single piece of evidence against them
The Mccanns are innocent
Further to this point Sadie, no one knows what happened to the child before 10:00 pm on May 3rd 2007.
What we do know is this:
There is no evidence to support the parent's assertion the child was abducted
There are no independent (i.e. from outside the parents and their friends) verification of their stories
The parents and the group's accounts of the events of that evening have been labelled, both by the Public Prosectuor under oath in Court, and the Judges in the book banning case, as "lies" and "incongruent"
The parents and the group would not reconstruct that night's events
The parents and their friends took this action knowing it would kill the investigation into the search for their missing child
There were indications from the dogs that someone had died in the apartment and on or around possessions belonging to the McCann's
Gerry McCann was on the verge of "cracking" according to Kate in her book, what was their to crack about?
Gerry McCann wanted to take flight and flee as fugitives across the border to Spain (page 254 Madeleine)
So whilst there is no evidence at this stage to bring charges against the parents before a court there are indications, requiring further investigation, the most important one being:
Why would innocent parents and their friends, the last people to see the child alive and well, lie about their actions, refuse to reconstruct them and seek to kill the investigation as a result?
What is the motive for them acting in this way?
That to me is the heart of the matter and requires further investigation.
-
There is no debate to be had. Eddie reacted to a coconut shell
This is the relevant cite from the Operation Haven report of Wiltshire Police, to which I will link in an edit:
OFFICER X
and others, CO POWER states ‘my
understanding of the rules is that we should not
commit to non budgeted expenditure until the
proposition is passed by the States’.
X completes X report in respect of
Exhibit JAR/6. In it X states that the sample was
not bone and not human, appearing instead to be
more like part of a large seed casing or part of
something like a small piece of coconut.
http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf
Can you tell me how these words denote a scientific fact:
appearing instead to be more like part of a large seed casing or part of something like a small piece of coconut
Absolutely no evidence as Gerry McCann would say.
-
Can you tell how to differentiate between a bulk standard blog and an official police report?
-
Can you tell how to differentiate between a bulk standard blog and an official police report?
The official police report does not state as fact it was coconut, does it?
The blog contains evidential testimoney direct from Lenny Harper.
Kepp going..... you'll get there.
-
I got there, long ago.
I'm waiting for you to catch up ...
Experts are (sometimes) infuriatingly reluctant to commit themselves.
The expert wheeled in at Ian Huntley's trial to demolish Huntley's basis for pleading not guilty to murder, did a pretty good job.
According to Huntley, both girls were present with Huntley in his bathroom. One developed a nose bleed and Huntley got some tissue to stem the blood.
Then the other girl tripped, fell into a bath he had run to wash his dog and drowned. Meanwhile, the first girl suffocated as Huntley held his hand over her mouth to stop her screaming.
The expert demolished this account expertly.
But at the end, asked if he thought Huntley's account impossible, he replied, no.
Huntley was convicted of murder by a majority verdict.
Did one juror exercise benefit of doubt?
-
Leicester stated a fact, Portugal stated a stupid opinion.
Who is stupid here ? And since when the fact they refused to reconstruct is an opinion and since when observing incoherences in their statements is stupid ?
-
I got there, long ago.
I'm waiting for you to catch up ...
Experts are (sometimes) infuriatingly reluctant to commit themselves.
The expert wheeled in at Ian Huntley's trial to demolish Huntley's basis for pleading not guilty to murder, did a pretty good job.
According to Huntley, both girls were present with Huntley in his bathroom. One developed a nose bleed and Huntley got some tissue to stem the blood.
Then the other girl tripped, fell into a bath he had run to wash his dog and drowned. Meanwhile, the first girl suffocated as Huntley held his hand over her mouth to stop her screaming.
The expert demolished this account expertly.
But at the end, asked if he thought Huntley's account impossible, he replied, no.
Huntley was convicted of murder by a majority verdict.
Did one juror exercise benefit of doubt?
Nope you appear to be stuck somewhere en route.
Once again there is no factual evidence that the dog alerted to coconut.
it does not say that in your police report, and it doesn't say that in the testimony of Lenny Harper.
So, to be clear, you have no evidence that Eddie alerted to coconut.
As i have said all along.
Look forward to your agreement with me on that now.
-
There is no debate to be had. Eddie reacted to a coconut shell
This is the relevant cite from the Operation Haven report of Wiltshire Police, to which I will link in an edit:
OFFICER X
and others, CO POWER states ‘my
understanding of the rules is that we should not
commit to non budgeted expenditure until the
proposition is passed by the States’.
X completes X report in respect of
Exhibit JAR/6. In it X states that the sample was
not bone and not human, appearing instead to be
more like part of a large seed casing or part of
something like a small piece of coconut.
http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf
Since when did coconut shells contain collagen? Which is only found in mammals? Wasnt the sample tested and found to have collagen? I suggest you read the reconstructions thread for all the facts.
Cadaver dogs do not alert to plants fruits and vegetables as well you know.
Trying to trash the dogs ability in a single case which may have a vested interest in is one thing, trying to trash it when it alerted several times in that case as well, in a horrific story of institutionalised child abuse and probable torture and murder, is beyond the pail