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: ferryman on July 28, 2013, 05:37:20 PM
-
It is abundantly plain from the archiving report that the Prosecutors considered the McCanns innocent.
I will add more in edits:
It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:
"1 - Whoever places another person's life in danger,
a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"
This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.
The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.
-
It is abundantly plain from the archiving report that the Prosecutors considered the McCanns innocent.
I will add more in edits:
It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:
"1 - Whoever places another person's life in danger,
a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"
This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.
The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.
Oh Jesus, this has been done to death on the other thread.
What's the need?
That paragraph about demonstrating innocence just won't go away, nor will the lack of McCann supporter explaination for it other than the prosecutor was an "idiot" for saying it (but presumably not an idiot for saying there was no evidence against the parents).
So in other words he was brilliant in deducing the Mccann's were not guilty of any crime (something McCann supporters agree with) but then at the same time an idiot for saying they had failed to demonstrate their innocence (something McCann supporters disagree with).
If you are intent on discussing this again probably best to cut and paste all the posts from the last 20 pages or so of the other thread.
-
this has been done to death on the other thread.
I'm delighted about that.
Obviously the truth cannot be reppeated often enough
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, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.
Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.
#]
Why are those of a cetain persuasion hung up on one sentence of a very long report?
It's clear the prosecutores had no doubts about the McCanns' innocence
-
Oh dear! You think what you want love but it won't change the fact that that pesky paragraph is in there!
It's been explained to you in great detail, you've not been able to explain the paragraph, nor counter the explanations provided and evidenced.
So you keep sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la la la, it won't change the facts that have been explained to you.
-
Oh dear! You think what you want love but it won't change the fact that that pesky paragraph is in there!
It's been explained to you in great detail, you've not been able to explain the paragraph, nor counter the explanations provided and evidenced.
So you keep sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la la la, it won't change the facts that have been explained to you.
I think it's more you sticking your fingers in your ears ....
-
Oh dear! You think what you want love but it won't change the fact that that pesky paragraph is in there!
It's been explained to you in great detail, you've not been able to explain the paragraph, nor counter the explanations provided and evidenced.
So you keep sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la la la, it won't change the facts that have been explained to you.
Albertini, why don't you dip your toe into the rest of the forum instead of the incessant "prove their innocence" business? There is plenty more to debate.
-
this has been done to death on the other thread.
I'm delighted about that.
Obviously the truth cannot be reppeated often enough
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, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.
Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.
#]
Why are those of a cetain persuasion hung up on one sentence of a very long report?
It's clear the prosecutores had no doubts about the McCanns' innocence
From what I have read on other forums it's common practice to take a sentence from a para, or even a few words from a sentence - and worry them and twist them until they have completely changed the true meaning which was already glaringly apparent when read in their full context. In this way they convince themselves that black is actually white imo.
To keep promoting one point made in an extremely long report, and ignore all the other points made in the same report - points which when taken in their entirety enabled the the final conclusion to be arrived at - is a similar exercise. IMO.
-
I think it's more you sticking your fingers in your ears ....
Well you would say that because you cannot see what is clear in front of you.
Unlike you i have addressed both the "no evidence" claim AND the failure to demonstrate innocence statement (which you have spectacularly ignored).
I have explained it, gave reasons for it and given examples of it in real cases.
As i have stated you have ignored the demonstration of innocence part, you've given no explaination whatsoever for it and, moreover, you have failed to be able to rebut my explaination and supporting cases.
Lest we forget it was not me saying they failed to demonstrate their innocence it was:
The Public Prosecutor in Portugal who wrote the report
The Attorney General in Portugal who accepted the report
The Assistant Chief Constable Of Leicestershire and his lawyers advsing him
Lord Justice Hogg who allowed the statement to be read in his court
So forgive me if i am prepared to accept what those legal minds say rather than McCann supporting forumites who seek to deny it such as yourself.
-
Well you would say that because as they say you cannot see what is clear in front of you.
Unlike you i have addressed both the "no evidence" claim AND the failure to demonstrate innocence statement (which you have spectacularly ignored).
I have explained it, gave reasons for it and given examples of it in real cases.
As i have stated you have ignored the demonstration of innocence part, you've given no explaination whatsoever for it and, moreover, you have failed to be able to rebut my explaination and supporting cases.
Lest we forget it was not me saying they failed to demonstrate their innocence it was:
The Public Prosecutor in Portugal who wrote the report
The Attorney General in Portugal who accepted the report
The Assistant Chief Constable Of Leicestershire and his lawyers advsing him
Lord Justice Hogg who allowed the statement to be read in his court
So forgive me if i am preapred to accept what those legal minds say rather than McCann supporting forumites who seek to deny it such as yourself.
Excellent response Albertini. 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
From what I have read on other forums it's common practice to take a sentence from a para, or even a few words from a sentence - and worry them and twist them until they have completely changed the true meaning which was already glaringly apparent when read in their full context. In this way they convince themselves that black is actually white imo.
To keep promoting one point made in an extremely long report, and ignore all the other points made in the same report - points which when taken in their entirety enabled the the final conclusion to be arrived at - is a similar exercise. IMO.
I take it you are talking here about Ferryman's obsession with the "no evidence" claim and complete denial about the demonstration of innocence part?
Because you can't surely be talking about my involvement where i have both acknowledged the no evidence and the failure to demonstrate to innocence elements of the report?
From what i have seen it is those McCann supporters who seek to ignore the part of the report which deals with demonstration of innocence who seek to convince themselves that black is white.
So if you are referring to me then I'm getting the words, pot, kettle black.
The fact is that the two statements which appear to be causing so much excitement in the minds of the supporters, are actually linked.
But either through intellectual naivety or sheer blind faith stubbornness supporters either cannot or will not attempt to understand the statements and draw them together.
There was no evidence in the disturbed investigation to suggest the McCann's had any involvement (in the mind of a public prosecutor) BUT there was no evidence they were not involved either.
And that's because they had failed to demonstrate their innocence in the disappearance of the child.
Perhaps had the group let the investigation FINISH rather than kill it before it was completed the Mccann's could have demonstrated their innocence.
But as the report says it was the refusal to take part in the recon which damaged the mcCann's because it was impossible for them to prove their innocence.
So, and once again, for those at the back, you cannot be "cleared" if you have failed to demonstrate your innocence.
And as much as you may want to wish it wasn't so that is the fact of the matter as validated by everyone from Menezez through to Lord Justice Hogg.
So you can either accept it, as most normal people would, or you can continue to deny it like some strange flat earth cult.
I'm not fussed either way to be honest, as i, like others on here, know what it means and accept it for what it is.
-
Albertini, why don't you dip your toe into the rest of the forum instead of the incessant "prove their innocence" business? There is plenty more to debate.
I have contributed to many of the other threads as well, thanks.
-
I take it you are talking here about Ferryman's obsession with the "no evidence" claim and complete denial about the demonstration of innocence part?
Because you can't surely be talking about my involvement where i have both acknowledged the no evidence and the failure to demonstrate to innocence elements of the report?
From what i have seen it is those McCann supporters who seek to ignore the part of the report which deals with demonstration of innocence who seek to convince themselves that black is white.
So if you are referring to me then I'm getting the words, pot, kettle black.
The fact is that the two statements which appear to be causing so much excitement in the minds of the supporters, are actually linked.
But either through intellectual naivety or sheer blind faith stubbornness supporters either cannot or will not attempt to understand the statements and draw them together.
There was no evidence in the disturbed investigation to suggest the McCann's had any involvement (in the mind of a public prosecutor) BUT there was no evidence they were not involved either.
And that's because they had failed to demonstrate their innocence in the disappearance of the child.
Perhaps had the group let the investigation FINISH rather than kill it before it was completed the Mccann's could have demonstrated their innocence.
But as the report says it was the refusal to take part in the recon which damaged the mcCann's because it was impossible for them to prove their innocence.
So, and once again, for those at the back, you cannot be "cleared" if you have failed to demonstrate your innocence.
And as much as you may want to wish it wasn't so that is the fact of the matter as validated by everyone from Menezez through to Lord Justice Hogg.
So you can either accept it, as most normal people would, or you can continue to deny it like some strange flat earth cult.
I'm not fussed either way to be honest, as i, like others on here, know what it means and accept it for what it is.
I take it you are talking here about Ferryman's obsession with the "no evidence" claim
Claim?
One of the prosecutors said at the first hearing into the injunction on Amaral's book that it is 50-50 whether Madeleine is alive or dead because there is no evidence the McCanns harmed Madeleine. By inference we can extend the same status to Robert Murat.
Fact!
I'm unclear why you persist in accusing the Prosecutors of lying?
-
I take it you are talking here about Ferryman's obsession with the "no evidence" claim
Claim?
One of the prosecutors said at the first hearing into the injunction on Amaral's book that it is 50-50 whether Madeleine is alive or dead because there is no evidence the McCanns harmed Madeleine. By inference we can extend the same status to Robert Murat.
Fact!
I'm unclear why you persist in accusing the Prosecutors of lying?
Did he really say that? Where? I am reading the tweets from the court session and cant find what you claim anywhere.
11:20 jondipaolo:
The first witness is being called by videoconference
11:23 jondipaolo:
It is the attorney who was in charge of the original inqury into Madeleine's disappearance, Jose Magalhaes e Menezes.
11:25 jondipaolo:
His testimony is marred by a high-pitched whine of feedback from the microphone - and the fact the screen can't be seen by the public.
11:26 jondipaolo:
The McCanns can't see the person giving evidence. Mr Amaral can, but doesn't seem to be looking at him.
11:26 jondipaolo:
Mr Amaral's lawyer is cross-examining the witness.
11:38 jondipaolo:
He says that the decision to make the McCanns 'arguidos' - suspects - was taken by the police and then confirmed by the public attorney.
11:39 jondipaolo:
The decision to designate Kate and Gerry as 'arguidos' was taken after the sniffer dogs carried out their searches.
11:40 jondipaolo:
There were several possible charges that could have been brought against the McCanns: kidnapping and selling a child were among them.
11:48 jondipaolo:
The witness was asked what the probability was of Madeleine still being alive. He replied that he thought it was 50/50.
11:55 jondipaolo:
Mr Menezes said that a claim made by the McCanns on the first day after Madeleine's disappearance was not true.
11:56 jondipaolo:
The witness said that Kate and Gerry's report that they had been checking on their daughter every half an hour was inaccurate.
11:57 jondipaolo:
He claimed that although the parents had been checking on Madeleine, it was not as often as every 30 minutes.
12:01 jondipaolo:
Police intercepted text messages sent by the McCanns because they were suspicious of the parents' role in Madeleine's disappearance.
12:02 jondipaolo:
The text messages sent by Kate and Gerry were never admitted as evidence gathered as part of the investigation.
12:08 jondipaolo:
Mr Menezes said he has not read the book written by Mr Amaral that triggered this case, Maddie: The Truth Of The Lie.
12:18 jondipaolo:
A report signed by Chief Inspector Tavares De Almeida said that Madeleine died in the flat in Praia da Luz, the witness adds.
12:19 jondipaolo:
Now it's the turn of the McCanns' legal team to cross-question the witness.
12:24 jondipaolo:
The McCanns' lawyer makes the point that 'evidence' usually sightings - has suggested Madeleine is still alive.
12:25 jondipaolo:
He says that the McCanns are not responsible for generating any of this 'evidence' that their daughter is not dead.
12:26 jondipaolo:
Another of the McCanns' lawyers moves to quiz the witness - literally. She gets out of her seat and walks right up to the video screen.
12:33 jondipaolo:
She says that the McCanns were always totally prepared to come back to Portugal to take part in a reconstruction of the disappearance.
12:34 jondipaolo:
The McCanns' lawyer asks the witness whether he understands the title of Mr Amaral's book to imply some sort of dishonesty by the McCanns.
12:38 jondipaolo:
Who suggested the checking of the McCanns' text messages, Mr Menezes is asked. The police, he replies.
12:39 jondipaolo:
The text messages were never considered as part of the investigation because the judge did not allow it, the court hears.
12:45 jondipaolo:
The senior lawyer for the McCanns has approached them on the front bench of the public gallery for a quick huddled conversation.
12:48 jondipaolo:
Tavares de Almeida, chief inspector of police at the time of Madeleine's disapperance, has taken the stand to give evidence.
-
I take it you are talking here about Ferryman's obsession with the "no evidence" claim
Claim?
One of the prosecutors said at the first hearing into the injunction on Amaral's book that it is 50-50 whether Madeleine is alive or dead because there is no evidence the McCanns harmed Madeleine. By inference we can extend the same status to Robert Murat.
Fact!
I'm unclear why you persist in accusing the Prosecutors of lying?
It is a fact that the prosecutor said it was 50:50.
It is a fact that the prosecutor said that the group lied (in the same courtroom as he made his 50:50 claim)
It is also a fact that the prosecutor said the McCann's had failed to demonstrate their innocence.
I'm unclear why you persist in cherry picking what the Prosecutor has said to suit your agenda?
And one more fact for you.
It is a fact the book banning Judges said that Amaral's thesis was an equally valid police led interpretation of the same facts the prosecutor used to surmise no evidence of the parents involvement.
-
It is a fact that the prosecutor said it was 50:50.
Perhaps you'd care to bring Redblossom up to speed on that fact.
Then bring yourself up to speed on the fact that there is no evidence against the McCanns.
The prosecutors said that as well.
-
I take it you are talking here about Ferryman's obsession with the "no evidence" claim
Claim?
One of the prosecutors said at the first hearing into the injunction on Amaral's book that it is 50-50 whether Madeleine is alive or dead because there is no evidence the McCanns harmed Madeleine. By inference we can extend the same status to Robert Murat.
Fact!
I'm unclear why you persist in accusing the Prosecutors of lying?
Mr Menezes was the first witness called at a libel trial brought by the McCanns against former police chief Goncalo Amaral. His book claimed Madeleine had died in the family's apartment in the holiday resort of Praia da Luz in May 2007.
But Mr Menezes said he thought the probability of Madeleine being alive was 50/50.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id296.html
-
It is a fact that the prosecutor said it was 50:50.
Perhaps you'd care to bring Redblossom up to speed on that fact.
Then bring yourself up to speed on the fact that there is no evidence against the McCanns.
The prosecutors said that as well.
I can't speak for Redblossom but what i can say is that you said this:
"50-50 whether Madeleine is alive or dead because there is no evidence the McCanns harmed Madeleine"
Which isn't accurate.
He said it was 50:50 she was dead
He did not say (from the transcripts i can see) that he thought this because there is no evidence the McCann's harmed her.
-
Mr Menezes was the first witness called at a libel trial brought by the McCanns against former police chief Goncalo Amaral. His book claimed Madeleine had died in the family's apartment in the holiday resort of Praia da Luz in May 2007.
But Mr Menezes said he thought the probability of Madeleine being alive was 50/50.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id296.html
And can you tell me why you think Menezez's opinion on this has any greater validity than Amaral's?
-
It is a fact that the prosecutor said it was 50:50.
Perhaps you'd care to bring Redblossom up to speed on that fact.
Then bring yourself up to speed on the fact that there is no evidence against the McCanns.
The prosecutors said that as well.
Now that is an example of an accurate and truthful post, with which I have no problem, unlike your previous one in which you fabricated what the prosecutor said. In fact, the sentence made no sense in any case, the question put was whether he thought Madeleine was dead or alive, nothing to do with whether he thought there was evidence of anyones guilt or innocence, so why you bothered is anyones guess.
LOL
Oh and I am up to speed thanks FM, the legal summary has been on the net for half a decade now
PS Albertini, post 16, precisely!
-
And can you tell me why you think Menezez's opinion on this has any greater validity than Amaral's?
I don't but he said it.
Paiva
4:12
jondipaolo:
Paiva: amaral's thesis has prevented other theories from being investigated.
This just shows the PJ's lack of joined up thinking and lack of training and lack of expertise.
But this still does NOT prove that Madeleine died and her parents hid the body!
50-50 and Amaral's thesis prevented other avenues of investigation.
-
I don't but he said it.
Paiva
4:12
jondipaolo:
Paiva: amaral's thesis has prevented other theories from being investigated.
This just shows the PJ's lack of joined up thinking and lack of training and lack of expertise.
But this still does NOT prove that Madeleine died and her parents hid the body!
50-50 and Amaral's thesis prevented other avenues of investigation.
But as that trial demonstrated Inspector Ricardo Paiva, Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida, Luis Neves, the national director of the DCCB, Guilhermino Encarnacao, head of the Faro Policia Judiciaria, Inspector Paulo Ferreira and Inspector Joao Carlos were all in agreement with the focus of the investigation being on the McCanns as prime suspects.
Kind of blows the idea that it was all Amaral's fault as some rogue cop intent on fitting up the McCann's completely out of the water.
We also know that after Amaral was dismissed even Rebelo's activities were focused on the group and their actions.
The rogue cop line was all nonesense anyway as how can one police officer in such a wide ranging and high profile enquiry bend the investigation to fit up or chase the parents?
It's simply not possible.
-
I don't but he said it.
Paiva
4:12
jondipaolo:
Paiva: amaral's thesis has prevented other theories from being investigated.
This just shows the PJ's lack of joined up thinking and lack of training and lack of expertise.
But this still does NOT prove that Madeleine died and her parents hid the body!
50-50 and Amaral's thesis prevented other avenues of investigation.
I have never thought that tweets sat right with the rest of Paiva's evidence. Perhaps Anne, who was in the court at the time, can through some light on the issue.
-
Magalhães e Menezes said in his report that unfortunately Madeleine was more likely dead than alive (2008). In 2010, GA's lawyer insisted in having a percentage about dead vs alive, Menezes said he couldn't say.., the lawyer suggested 50:50 and Menezes, relieved, said yes.
-
I have never thought that tweets sat right with the rest of Paiva's evidence. Perhaps Anne, who was in the court at the time, can through some light on the issue.
I didn't hear this and it's surprising, so I guess I would have been surprised and had memorized it. As for the narrative of the 50/50, this isn't what I heard. I was particularly interested in this on a formal topic. The sentence in the report is syntaxically twisted. You don't read it without thinking that MM wasn't at ease at all and tried to say without saying. But there's no other interpretation possible than "it seems more likely she's dead". GA's lawyer tried foolishly to make MM call a cat a cat.
Generally speaking I thought the witnesses were very reserved, they said casually what they had to say without any spirit of resentment though one of them was at stake. The unique surprise was Dra Isabel Duarte, popping up from a Balzac novel, behaving like a witch cursing around. As she's very short she sticked her arms towards the sky like asking the protection of the gods. It was so ridiculous, I pitied the McCanns to have such a counsellor.
-
I didn't hear this and it's surprising, so I guess I would have been surprised and had memorized it. As for the narrative of the 50/50, this isn't what I heard. I was particularly interested in this on a formal topic. The sentence in the report is syntaxically twisted. You don't read it without thinking that MM wasn't at ease at all and tried to say without saying. But there's no other interpretation possible than "it seems more likely she's dead". GA's lawyer tried foolishly to make MM call a cat a cat.
Generally speaking I thought the witnesses were very reserved, they said casually what they had to say without any spirit of resentment though one of them was at stake. The unique surprise was Dra Isabel Duarte, popping up from a Balzac novel, behaving like a witch cursing around. As she's very short she sticked her arms towards the sky like asking the protection of the gods. It was so ridiculous, I pitied the McCanns to have such a counsellor.
Thanks for relying Anne. Seems everything was not as reported in the British media.
-
I don't but he said it.
So now you finally agree that the prosecutor's thoery is of equal validity to Amaral's accident theory?
Excellent, we are moving things forward.
-
So now you finally agree that the prosecutor's thoery is of equal validity to Amaral's accident theory?
Excellent, we are moving things forward.
No I don't.
And please do not alter my posts, by bolding words, I did not bold.
-
And can you tell me why you think Menezez's opinion on this has any greater validity than Amaral's?
Oh, I think it has, or should I say, is likely to have.
Amaral is a proven perjurer. Liars and peopple who codone [and allegedly] torture cannot be trusted.
Am afraid that no-one will ever trust Amaral again. He has done so many awful things.
And, no I am not going thru it all again. It is all down here recorded in this forum. Well most of it is anyway. Might be more to come. @)(++(*
-
So now you finally agree that the prosecutor's thoery is of equal validity to Amaral's accident theory?
Excellent, we are moving things forward.
The Prosecutor set out his findings after examining all the documentation available to him on the case, whereas Amaral was excused from the case in the early months and would not have been privy to all the documentation. How can you compare the Prosecutor's findings to that of Amaral? The Prosecutors finding is based on the documentation/evidence whereas Amarals theory contains inaccurate forensic interpretation (dog alerts and presents or not of cadaver) and fiction (refer to transport of frozen body in fridge).
As a side, this also raises the question about the documentation Amaral had access to as a civilian.
-
I didn't hear this and it's surprising, so I guess I would have been surprised and had memorized it. As for the narrative of the 50/50, this isn't what I heard. I was particularly interested in this on a formal topic. The sentence in the report is syntaxically twisted. You don't read it without thinking that MM wasn't at ease at all and tried to say without saying. But there's no other interpretation possible than "it seems more likely she's dead". GA's lawyer tried foolishly to make MM call a cat a cat.
Generally speaking I thought the witnesses were very reserved, they said casually what they had to say without any spirit of resentment though one of them was at stake. The unique surprise was Dra Isabel Duarte, popping up from a Balzac novel, behaving like a witch cursing around. As she's very short she sticked her arms towards the sky like asking the protection of the gods. It was so ridiculous, I pitied the McCanns to have such a counsellor.
You weren't the only one in court, Anne!
Magalhães e Menezes, wasn't was he?.
-
The Prosecutor set out his findings after examining all the documentation available to him on the case, whereas Amaral was excused from the case in the early months and would not have been privy to all the documentation. How can you compare the Prosecutor's findings to that of Amaral? The Prosecutors finding is based on the documentation/evidence whereas Amarals theory contains inaccurate forensic interpretation (dog alerts and presents or not of cadaver) and fiction (refer to transport of frozen body in fridge).
As a side, this also raises the question about the documentation Amaral had access to as a civilian.
A theory is a theory and facts are facts. Then there are things in between, interpretation and hypotheses, legalities, understandings and judgements.Both the PP and Amaral did exactly the same in a way. The PP had to make legal decisions, though, Amaral did not. He wrote an account of the investigation as he knew it from May to October 07.
Amaral was not a civilian until the end of June 2008, its entirely possible he would have had access to a case he worked on before being taken off it, but, in any case,isnt that moot as there is nothing really in his book that is post October 07 when he was off it, is there?
-
No I don't.
And please do not alter my posts, by bolding words, I did not bold.
Pardon? Alter your posts?! @)(++(*
In answer to my question:
And can you tell me why you think Menezez's opinion on this has any greater validity than Amaral's?
You replied:
I don't but he said it.
Other than bolding (which is not "altering") i have quoted you word for word!
If you didn't mean to say that then you need to choose your words more carefully.
I can only comment on what you say, not what you should have said.
I'm not a mind reader.
-
The Prosecutor set out his findings after examining all the documentation available to him on the case, whereas Amaral was excused from the case in the early months and would not have been privy to all the documentation. How can you compare the Prosecutor's findings to that of Amaral? The Prosecutors finding is based on the documentation/evidence whereas Amarals theory contains inaccurate forensic interpretation (dog alerts and presents or not of cadaver) and fiction (refer to transport of frozen body in fridge).
As a side, this also raises the question about the documentation Amaral had access to as a civilian.
All well and good apart from real Judges in a real Court disagree with you and with all the evidence of the archiving report to hand found Amaral's thesis an equally valid interpretation of the same facts.
So are you saying you know more in Law than those Judge's, or that they are wrong, or are they in on it with Amaral as well?
-
All well and good apart from real Judges in a real Court disagree with you and with all the evidence of the archiving report to hand found Amaral's thesis an equally valid interpretation of the same facts.
So are you saying you know more in Law than those Judge's, or that they are wrong, or are they in on it with Amaral as well?
So the fridge business was a valid interpretation of the facts, then?
-
All well and good apart from real Judges in a real Court disagree with you and with all the evidence of the archiving report to hand found Amaral's thesis an equally valid interpretation of the same facts.
So are you saying you know more in Law than those Judge's, or that they are wrong, or are they in on it with Amaral as well?
I said, that giving Amaral's theory as much weight as the Prosecutor or Attorney Generals findings is totally wrong. Not equal.
-
I said, that giving Amaral's theory as much weight as the Prosecutor or Attorney Generals findings is totally wrong. Not equal.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
A theory is a theory and facts are facts. Then there are things in between, interpretation and hypotheses, legalities, understandings and judgements.Both the PP and Amaral did exactly the same in a way. The PP had to make legal decisions, though, Amaral did not. He wrote an account of the investigation as he knew it from May to October 07.
Amaral was not a civilian until the end of June 2008, its entirely possible he would have had access to a case he worked on before being taken off it, but, in any case,isnt that moot as there is nothing really in his book that is post October 07 when he was off it, is there?
Amaral LAUNCHED his book 24 July 2008. The case was shelved 21 July 2008. So he had written his book making use of case information that was still under secrecy law and then PUBLISHED IT PRIOR TO THE SHELVING DATE and waited 3 days after the notice of shelving had been given, then launched his book.
Looks to me he had information and access he wasn't privy to.
-
Magalhães e Menezes said in his report that unfortunately Madeleine was more likely dead than alive (2008). In 2010, GA's lawyer insisted in having a percentage about dead vs alive, Menezes said he couldn't say.., the lawyer suggested 50:50 and Menezes, relieved, said yes.
Was Magalhaes e Menezes in court, Anne?
-
Amaral LAUNCHED his book 24 July 2008. The case was shelved 21 July 2008. So he had written his book making use of case information that was still under secrecy law and then PUBLISHED IT PRIOR TO THE SHELVING DATE and waited 3 days after the notice of shelving had been given, then launched his book.
Looks to me he had information and access he wasn't privy to.
so? he didnt publish it when the case was under secrecy did he? It was after. Im not sure why you are getting your nickers in a twist over nothing. As I said in my post he didnt put anything in his book post oct 07 so what infact did he publish he wasnt privy to? And how do you know, even if he did, he wasnt privy to it?As for such moral indignation about the secrecy laws, you are having a laugh. Everyone broke them, the Mccanns and Tapas group included,ergo you have no argument there. As if anyone gives a rats ar se anyway
@)(++(*
Eta oh sorry, those that give a rats arse are those that wanted it BANNED....NO ONE bans books in this day and age, it makes you look stupid vindictive and suspicious, another shoot yourself in foot moment for team mccann
8((()*/
-
so? he didnt publish it when the case was under secrecy did he? It was after. Im not sure why you are getting your nickers in a twist over nothing. As I said in my post he didnt put anything in his book post oct 07 so what infact did he publish he wasnt privy to? And how do you know, even if he did, he wasnt privy to it?As for such moral indignation about the secrecy laws, you are having a laugh. Everyone broke them, the Mccanns and Tapas group included,ergo you have no argument there. As if anyone gives a rats ar se anyway
@)(++(*
Yes he did, that was one of the facts brought to court by their lawyer Ms Duarte. He launched it after shelving but it was written and published before shelving.
-
Yes he did, that was one of the facts brought to court by their lawyer Ms Duarte. He launched it after shelving but it was written and published before shelving.
So what? And I thought you said it was published three days after shelving, nit picking irrelevant total nonsense
8)--))
-
So what? And I thought you said it was published three days after shelving, nit picking irrelevant total nonsense
8)--))
It's a big "so what" don't you think? Why else would it have been raised in court.
Launched 3 days after. Here is a copy of my post for you to read again.
Amaral LAUNCHED his book 24 July 2008. The case was shelved 21 July 2008. So he had written his book making use of case information that was still under secrecy law and then PUBLISHED IT PRIOR TO THE SHELVING DATE and waited 3 days after the notice of shelving had been given, then launched his book.
-
So the fridge business was a valid interpretation of the facts, then?
In the words and style of Gerry McCann "Ask the judges Rachel"
-
In the words and style of Gerry McCann "Ask the judges Rachel"
Nice swerve! Answer the question por favour - and please don't try to alter any meanings by bolding!
-
I said, that giving Amaral's theory as much weight as the Prosecutor or Attorney Generals findings is totally wrong. Not equal.
Not according to real judges:
"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.
Once again i ask if you are a Judge?
-
Not according to real judges:
"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.
Once again i ask if you are a Judge?
Once again I ask if the fridge business was a valid interpretation of the facts.
-
Nice swerve! Answer the question por favour - and please don't try to alter any meanings by bolding!
It was by Gerry wasn't it, with Sandra i think.
The point stands the Judge's, validated it. End of.
I'm not a Judge.
Meanings are determined by the words used not by how they are bolded to explain to a poster what the words he or she has written actually mean.
-
Once again I ask if the fridge business was a valid interpretation of the facts.
Well quite clearly, yes according to the Judges! D'uh!
-
Well quite clearly, yes according to the Judges! D'uh!
I'm sorry but................ ROFL. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* oh dear.....
-
Was Magalhaes e Menezes in court, Anne?
No he wasn't in court, Rachel. He used a video link. I'm surprised Anne didn't mention it!
-
I'm sorry but................ ROFL. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* oh dear.....
I know! What a silly question from Rachel!
-
I know! What a silly question from Rachel!
Contraire. But you continue along your deluded path..........
-
Lets exam this 'Judge gave Amarals thesis equal status' malarkey. It seems that some people use selective quotes to try prove a point when they forget that those selected statements read in context doesn't necessarily carry the same meaning as what the person using the out of context statements are claiming.
We have the case of a missing child and then we have the issue of the book that was written on the case.
The judges comment stems from the court case in which Amaral was being sued for libel; his theory that the parents are responsible for Madeleine’s death and concealment of her body.
The entire 'tone' of the court proceedings was to establish if Amaral had the right to express his views, which is not the same as determining whether his theory was correct. That was clearly demonstrated by the so called facts he stated in the book which were contrary to the facts in the police files. Take the interpretation of the forensic reports as an example.
The court case was based on whether Amaral had the right to freely express his opinion. And whether that freedom overruled the right of the McCann's being libelled.
The difficulty lies in the fact that the Portuguese and English (UK) law differ in their approach to libel laws. While you can’t publish the book in the UK because it breaches libel laws, it is allowed in Portugal under freedom of expression where it seems libel takes second place to an individual’s right to have ones reputation protected against harm. In other words being called or indirectly labelled a child murderer without evidence, which would stand up in a court of law, harms ones reputation.
Taking into context the reason for court case against Amarals book, it is clear that the judges expressed their ruling on the basis that Amaral had as much right to state his theory as did the Attorney General or any other whose professional view WAS based on fact; ruling not based on factual correctness of the theory but the right to express himself. The equality demonstrated on grounds of right of expression and not any other grounds.
In summary: The judge made a ruling on the issue of Amaral being able to exercise his right of expression/freedom of expression, but this DOES NOT VALIDATE THE CONTENT of the theory but mealy the principle that he was allowed to express that theory. In this context (as it was implied in the first instance). The expression/the right to voice his theory carried as much weights as any other, but it does not imply that the contents of that theory is correct or has any equal weight to any other.
Conclusion: It is therefore incorrect to claim the judges said Amarals theory holds as much weight as any others.
-
Says the man who has not offered one single explanation as to what the failure to demonstrate their innocence line is in there for.
Can you tell me what the prosecutor meant, and please dont use the word "idiot" again, because that is a little embarrasing when you factor in who validated his comments.
Had the McCann's and their friends fully co-operated with Rebelo and the investigation their innocence may well have been established.
What motive could they have for not helping the investigation:
a) find their daughter
b) Demonstrating to the investigation their innocence
There was no guarantee that after the McCann's had demonstrated their innocence that they would be treated as such. Ask those who demonstrated their innocence in Portugal and still where found guilty of some crime they never committed and jailed.
Portugal has an appalling record of human rights violations regarding wrongful imprisonment.
-
Lets exam this 'Judge gave Amarals thesis equal status' malarkey. It seems that some people use selective quotes to try prove a point when they forget that those selected statements read in context doesn't necessarily carry the same meaning as what the person using the out of context statements are claiming.
We have the case of a missing child and then we have the issue of the book that was written on the case.
The judges comment stems from the court case in which Amaral was being sued for libel; his theory that the parents are responsible for Madeleine’s death and concealment of her body.
The entire 'tone' of the court proceedings was to establish if Amaral had the right to express his views, which is not the same as determining whether his theory was correct. That was clearly demonstrated by the so called facts he stated in the book which were contrary to the facts in the police files. Take the interpretation of the forensic reports as an example.
The court case was based on whether Amaral had the right to freely express his opinion. And whether that freedom overruled the right of the McCann's being libelled.
The difficulty lies in the fact that the Portuguese and English (UK) law differ in their approach to libel laws. While you can’t publish the book in the UK because it breaches libel laws, it is allowed in Portugal under freedom of expression where it seems libel takes second place to an individual’s right to have ones reputation protected against harm. In other words being called or indirectly labelled a child murderer without evidence, which would stand up in a court of law, harms ones reputation.
Taking into context the reason for court case against Amarals book, it is clear that the judges expressed their ruling on the basis that Amaral had as much right to state his theory as did the Attorney General or any other whose professional view WAS based on fact; ruling not based on factual correctness of the theory but the right to express himself. The equality demonstrated on grounds of right of expression and not any other grounds.
In summary: The judge made a ruling on the issue of Amaral being able to exercise his right of expression/freedom of expression, but this DOES NOT VALIDATE THE CONTENT of the theory but mealy the principle that he was allowed to express that theory. In this context (as it was implied in the first instance). The expression/the right to voice his theory carried as much weights as any other, but it does not imply that the contents of that theory is correct or has any equal weight to any other.
Conclusion: It is therefore incorrect to claim the judges said Amarals theory holds as much weight as any others.
By that logic would hold for a thesis of abduction as well.
-
By that logic would hold for a thesis of abduction as well.
Amarals thesis does not support the abduction angle.
-
Amarals thesis does not support the abduction angle.
I am well aware of that.
As it stands then no theory has credence over another.
Again courtesy of the CFO, Madeleine's disappearance stands as 'type of crime unknown' and nothing of any consequence appears to lie on the horizon to change that.
-
Lets exam this 'Judge gave Amarals thesis equal status' malarkey. It seems that some people use selective quotes to try prove a point when they forget that those selected statements read in context doesn't necessarily carry the same meaning as what the person using the out of context statements are claiming.
We have the case of a missing child and then we have the issue of the book that was written on the case.
The judges comment stems from the court case in which Amaral was being sued for libel; his theory that the parents are responsible for Madeleine’s death and concealment of her body.
The entire 'tone' of the court proceedings was to establish if Amaral had the right to express his views, which is not the same as determining whether his theory was correct. That was clearly demonstrated by the so called facts he stated in the book which were contrary to the facts in the police files. Take the interpretation of the forensic reports as an example.
The court case was based on whether Amaral had the right to freely express his opinion. And whether that freedom overruled the right of the McCann's being libelled.
The difficulty lies in the fact that the Portuguese and English (UK) law differ in their approach to libel laws. While you can’t publish the book in the UK because it breaches libel laws, it is allowed in Portugal under freedom of expression where it seems libel takes second place to an individual’s right to have ones reputation protected against harm. In other words being called or indirectly labelled a child murderer without evidence, which would stand up in a court of law, harms ones reputation.
Taking into context the reason for court case against Amarals book, it is clear that the judges expressed their ruling on the basis that Amaral had as much right to state his theory as did the Attorney General or any other whose professional view WAS based on fact; ruling not based on factual correctness of the theory but the right to express himself. The equality demonstrated on grounds of right of expression and not any other grounds.
In summary: The judge made a ruling on the issue of Amaral being able to exercise his right of expression/freedom of expression, but this DOES NOT VALIDATE THE CONTENT of the theory but mealy the principle that he was allowed to express that theory. In this context (as it was implied in the first instance). The expression/the right to voice his theory carried as much weights as any other, but it does not imply that the contents of that theory is correct or has any equal weight to any other.
Conclusion: It is therefore incorrect to claim the judges said Amarals theory holds as much weight as any others.
An excellent post Mo.
8@??)( 8@??)(
-
I am well aware of that.
As it stands then no theory has credence over another.
Again courtesy of the CFO, Madeleine's disappearance stands as 'type of crime unknown' and nothing of any consequence appears to lie on the horizon to change that.
It would depend on your definition of theory.
Abstract reasoning; speculation.
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment.
An ideal or hypothetical situation.
A concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena.
I would go as far as to say, there are more facts/forensic evidence that doesn't support Amarals 'death' theory.
One can't eliminate the presents of an abductor (forensic evidence) because of the contaminated crime scene but one can eliminate the presents of cadaver/death because there is no forensic evidence to support the dog alerts.
-
There was no guarantee that after the McCann's had demonstrated their innocence that they would be treated as such. Ask those who demonstrated their innocence in Portugal and still where found guilty of some crime they never committed and jailed.
Portugal has an appalling record of human rights violations regarding wrongful imprisonment.
Absolute hogwash.
This is Portugal, not Zimbabwe.
This case would have had to go before a court. It would have been perhaps the most famous trial in the world since OJ Simpson.
Every detail and each piece of evidence would have been thoroughly examined.
To even suggest that any attempt to fit them up and to get it through a court, on a case of this magnitutde is ludicrous.
You could argue the same point in every country in the civilised world (including the UK) where miscarriages of Justice have taken place.
You cannot use rare examples of misfeasance as a reason for not co-operating in the official police investigation.
-
Yes but we weren't talking about them going to court, we were talking in the context of the investigation.
They needed to prove their innocence to the investigation, not a court.
Had they fully co-operated with the investigation, and been able to act out their movements in a manner they believe exonerates them, then they had nothing to worry about and their innocence TO THE INVESTIGATION (note not a court) could have been demonstrated.
Come on, keep up.
Why would they have had to demonstrate their innocence if everything was documented in the files and the police where able to use the documented statements to, for example - do a reconstruction without the McCann's. They did a reconstruction without the McCann's in a documentary, not so? What did that prove? Did that shed any new light on the case? The same result would have been obtained if the McCann's had been physically involved in the reconstruction.
If the INVESTIGATION had all the facts/statements one has to ask oneself what then was the real purpose of insisting that the McCann's demonstrate their innocence.
-
It would depend on your definition of theory.
Abstract reasoning; speculation.
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment.
An ideal or hypothetical situation.
A concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena.
I would go as far as to say, there are more facts/forensic evidence that doesn't support Amarals 'death' theory.
One can't eliminate the presents of an abductor (forensic evidence) because of the contaminated crime scene but one can eliminate the presents of cadaver/death because there is no forensic evidence to support the dog alerts.
You should really know by now, that an absence of evidence does not mean a crime didn't occur.
That of course operates in both scenarios.
The forensics were inconclusive.
Meanwhile for the umpteenth time plus, there has not been one sign/trace of Madeleine in over 6 years despite the worldwide publicity for the case.
-
Absolute hogwash.
This is Portugal, not Zimbabwe.
This case would have had to go before a court. It would have been perhaps the most famous trial in the world since OJ Simpson.
Every detail and each piece of evidence would have been thoroughly examined.
To even suggest that any attempt to fit them up and to get it through a court, on a case of this magnitutde is ludicrous.
You could argue the same point in every country in the civilised world (including the UK) where miscarriages of Justice have taken place.
You cannot use rare examples of misfeasance as a reason for not co-operating in the official police investigation.
Why can't one use examples of miscarriage of justice as a reason for not co-operating? If one is aware of the human rights violations of a country then one would be extra careful when co-operating or not, with the authorities.
Every detail and every piece of evidence was examined and it was determined that there was no grounds for a court case. Co-operation or not, there was no grounds for a court case.
-
You should really know by now, that an absence of evidence does not mean a crime didn't occur.
That of course operates in both scenarios.
The forensics were inconclusive.
Meanwhile for the umpteenth time plus, there has not been one sign/trace of Madeleine in over 6 years despite the worldwide publicity for the case.
And there was no trace of many of those missing and found alive years later as well.
-
Why would they have had to demonstrate their innocence if everything was documented in the files and the police where able to use the documented statements to, for example - do a reconstruction without the McCann's. They did a reconstruction without the McCann's in a documentary, not so? What did that prove? Did that shed any new light on the case? The same result would have been obtained if the McCann's had been physically involved in the reconstruction.
If the INVESTIGATION had all the facts/statements one has to ask oneself what then was the real purpose of insisting that the McCann's demonstrate their innocence.
See the final report, it clearly states what they sought to acheive in there. Oh and it also mentions the proving innocence thing as well:
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, it was decided to carry out the "reconstruction of the fact", a diligence that is consecrated in article 150 of the Penal Process Code in the sense of duly clarifying, on the very location of the facts, the following very important details, among others:
1 – The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;
2 – The situation concerning the window to the bedroom where Madeleine slept, together with the twins, which was open, according to Kate. It seemed then necessary to clarify if there was a draught, since movement of the curtains and pressure under the bedroom door are mentioned, which, eventually, could be verified through the reconstitution;
3 – The establishment of a timeline and of a line of effective checking on the minors that were left alone in the apartments, given that, if it is believed that such checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, at least, very difficult to reunite conditions for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said abductor, with the child, namely through a window with scarce space. It is added that the supposed abductor could only pass, through that window, holding the minor in a different position (vertical) from the one that witness JANE TANNER saw (horizontal);
4 – What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7 p.m. – the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time, in her apartment, by a different person (David Payne) from her parents or siblings – and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy – at around 10 p.m.;
5 – The obvious and well-known advantages of immediate appreciation of evidence, or in other words, the fulfilment of the principle of contiguity of evidence in order to form a conviction, as firm as possible, about what was seen by Jane Tanner and the other interposers, and, eventually, to dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing [child's] parents.
-
And there was no trace of many of those missing and found alive years later as well.
Completely different cases , in terms of what happened.
Did they receive worldwide publicity for over 6 years ?
Or was it publicity at the time they were found ?
-
Why can't one use examples of miscarriage of justice as a reason for not co-operating? If one is aware of the human rights violations of a country then one would be extra careful when co-operating or not, with the authorities.
Every detail and every piece of evidence was examined and it was determined that there was no grounds for a court case. Co-operation or not, there was no grounds for a court case.
How was "Every detail and every piece of evidence was examined " when the investigation was incomplete?
-
See the final report, it clearly states what they sought to acheive in there. Oh and it also mentions the proving innocence thing as well:
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, it was decided to carry out the "reconstruction of the fact", a diligence that is consecrated in article 150 of the Penal Process Code in the sense of duly clarifying, on the very location of the facts, the following very important details, among others:
1 – The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;
2 – The situation concerning the window to the bedroom where Madeleine slept, together with the twins, which was open, according to Kate. It seemed then necessary to clarify if there was a draught, since movement of the curtains and pressure under the bedroom door are mentioned, which, eventually, could be verified through the reconstitution;
3 – The establishment of a timeline and of a line of effective checking on the minors that were left alone in the apartments, given that, if it is believed that such checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, at least, very difficult to reunite conditions for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said abductor, with the child, namely through a window with scarce space. It is added that the supposed abductor could only pass, through that window, holding the minor in a different position (vertical) from the one that witness JANE TANNER saw (horizontal);
4 – What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7 p.m. – the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time, in her apartment, by a different person (David Payne) from her parents or siblings – and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy – at around 10 p.m.;
5 – The obvious and well-known advantages of immediate appreciation of evidence, or in other words, the fulfilment of the principle of contiguity of evidence in order to form a conviction, as firm as possible, about what was seen by Jane Tanner and the other interposers, and, eventually, to dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing [child's] parents.
The police got their reconstruction albeit not with the McCann's as participants, but they got the reconstruction and it did not shed any new light on the issue nor did it dismiss any doubts concerning the innocence of the missing child's parents. In other words, a pointless exercise.
The issue raised was - the McCann's did not cooperate with the police. Which is incorrect because on most of the requests they did cooperate, but only the one or two they didn't cooperate with was scrutinised.
The one or two the anti McCann's are holding onto for dear life as same evidence of any wrong doing.
They damned if they do and they damned if they don't.
-
How was "Every detail and every piece of evidence was examined " when the investigation was incomplete?
Every detail and every piece of evidence available to them at the time.
So you agree then, the investigation had many failings.
-
The police got their reconstruction albeit not with the McCann's as participants, but they got the reconstruction and it did not shed any new light on the issue nor did it dismiss any doubts concerning the innocence of the missing child's parents. In other words, a pointless exercise.
The issue raised was - the McCann's did not cooperate with the police. Which is incorrect because on most of the requests they did cooperate, but only the one or two they didn't cooperate with was scrutinised.
The one or two the anti McCann's are holding onto for dear life as same evidence of any wrong doing.
They damned if they do and they damned if they don't.
What reconstruction was that then? Certainly not one with the actual witnessess involved.
They did not co-operate with the PJ's request to perform the reconstruction which the PJ had decided was needed to clarify events.
Who are you, or indeed them as witness/suspects, to question the investigation's needs, methods and strategies?
The point is the official investigation into their missing daughter required it, the importance of it was stressed to them in the emails leading up to the group's decision to not attend, and as a consequence of their refusal the investigation was closed.
Hardly damned if they do and damned if they don't, but a deliberate action using unfounded reasons to kill the investigation into the missing child.
And given this thread where there are unexplained and changes of statements in unison, then that is highly suspicious.
-
Why can't one use examples of miscarriage of justice as a reason for not co-operating? If one is aware of the human rights violations of a country then one would be extra careful when co-operating or not, with the authorities.
Every detail and every piece of evidence was examined and it was determined that there was no grounds for a court case. Co-operation or not, there was no grounds for a court case.
So using that logic, any suspect now that Andy redwood lines up as an "abductor" can refuse to comply with the investigation because of Andy's involvement in the Barry George case.
Presumably, as i am applying your logic, you will be more than happy with that?
-
Every detail and every piece of evidence available to them at the time.
So you agree then, the investigation had many failings.
Yes in a "disturbed" investigation. Not a completed one exhausting all leads and following up all enquiries.
Which then begs the question, why was it distrubed?
Then we come back to the failure to attend the reconstruction by the group.
I agree it was a failing not to try and force the group to go back to Portugal.
-
Lets exam this 'Judge gave Amarals thesis equal status' malarkey. It seems that some people use selective quotes to try prove a point when they forget that those selected statements read in context doesn't necessarily carry the same meaning as what the person using the out of context statements are claiming.
We have the case of a missing child and then we have the issue of the book that was written on the case.
The judges comment stems from the court case in which Amaral was being sued for libel; his theory that the parents are responsible for Madeleine’s death and concealment of her body.
The entire 'tone' of the court proceedings was to establish if Amaral had the right to express his views, which is not the same as determining whether his theory was correct. That was clearly demonstrated by the so called facts he stated in the book which were contrary to the facts in the police files. Take the interpretation of the forensic reports as an example.
The court case was based on whether Amaral had the right to freely express his opinion. And whether that freedom overruled the right of the McCann's being libelled.
The difficulty lies in the fact that the Portuguese and English (UK) law differ in their approach to libel laws. While you can’t publish the book in the UK because it breaches libel laws, it is allowed in Portugal under freedom of expression where it seems libel takes second place to an individual’s right to have ones reputation protected against harm. In other words being called or indirectly labelled a child murderer without evidence, which would stand up in a court of law, harms ones reputation.
Taking into context the reason for court case against Amarals book, it is clear that the judges expressed their ruling on the basis that Amaral had as much right to state his theory as did the Attorney General or any other whose professional view WAS based on fact; ruling not based on factual correctness of the theory but the right to express himself. The equality demonstrated on grounds of right of expression and not any other grounds.
In summary: The judge made a ruling on the issue of Amaral being able to exercise his right of expression/freedom of expression, but this DOES NOT VALIDATE THE CONTENT of the theory but mealy the principle that he was allowed to express that theory. In this context (as it was implied in the first instance). The expression/the right to voice his theory carried as much weights as any other, but it does not imply that the contents of that theory is correct or has any equal weight to any other.
Conclusion: It is therefore incorrect to claim the judges said Amarals theory holds as much weight as any others.
All perfectly reasonable had the Judges simply allowed the book to be released again citing the freedom of expression you mention and left their judgement at that.
However they specifically went above and beyond that in stating categorically that Amaral's theory (in the book) was:
[a] logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he [Amaral] makes of those facts."
And:
but those very same facts, seen from a different angle, may lead to a different conclusion from that of the prosecutors.
So in the ruling the "interpretation" that Amaral makes of those facts:
logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he [Amaral] makes of those facts
Seen from a different angle may lead to different conclusions:
but those very same facts, seen from a different angle, may lead to a different conclusion from that of the prosecutors.
Of course it validates the content of the theory. By calling it a "logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation" that is what the judges feel it is.
If it had no validity other than simply being Amaral's right to freedom of expression, then why describe it as logical, police work related and investigative?
If it was not an equally valid interpretation why say that Amaral's thesis may lead to a different conclusion to that of the prosecutor?
The judges are giving Amaral's interpretation equal weight to the Prosecutor's.
-
All perfectly reasonable had the Judges simply allowed the book to be released again citing the freedom of expression you mention and left their judgement at that.
However they specifically went above and beyond that in stating categorically that Amaral's theory (in the book) was:
[a] logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he [Amaral] makes of those facts."
And:
but those very same facts, seen from a different angle, may lead to a different conclusion from that of the prosecutors.
So in the ruling the "interpretation" that Amaral makes of those facts:
logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he [Amaral] makes of those facts
Seen from a different angle may lead to different conclusions:
but those very same facts, seen from a different angle, may lead to a different conclusion from that of the prosecutors.
Of course it validates the content of the theory. By calling it a "logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation" that is what the judges feel it is.
If it had no validity other than simply being Amaral's right to freedom of expression, then why describe it as logical, police work related and investigative?
If it was not an equally valid interpretation why say that Amaral's thesis may lead to a different conclusion to that of the prosecutor?
The judges are giving Amaral's interpretation equal weight to the Prosecutor's.
Once again you are electing to quote without recognising the tone or context of the statement/s. What was said was that Amaral had the right of expression his opinion even if it differs from that of the Prosecution.
"Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts."
In other words; Amaral used his logic, investigative techniques and police skills to make an interpretation of the facts. The judge did NOT say; the theory is based on logic, police-work-related and investigative technique - which is what you are implying.
You said: "Of course it validates the content of the theory. By calling it a "logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation" that is what the judges feel it is." INCORRECT.
Also; the Prosecutor used logic, police-work-related and investigative technique to come to a conclusion. But his interpretation of the facts differed from that of Amarals. And in this lies the crux of the matter. Amaral is entitled under freedom of expression to do so. To interpret the facts and come to his own conclusion. Nowhere does it infer/the judges say that his theory carries equal weight to that of the Prosecutors or that his theory is logic, based on police work and factually correct. That was not the issue being examined. The freedom of expression was.
"Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts." - Emphasis on interpretation that HE does of those facts. In no way is that a validation of the actual theory.
Important to note!! One must also be very wary of the translation of Portuguese to English in court transcripts. Often the meaning of something is changed in translation.
-
Once again you are electing to quote without recognising the tone or context of the statement/s. What was said was that Amaral had the right of expression his opinion even if it differs from that of the Prosecution.
"Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts."
In other words; Amaral used his logic, investigative techniques and police skills to make an interpretation of the facts. The judge did NOT say; the theory is based on logic, police-work-related and investigative technique - which is what you are implying.
You said: "Of course it validates the content of the theory. By calling it a "logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation" that is what the judges feel it is." INCORRECT.
Also; the Prosecutor used logic, police-work-related and investigative technique to come to a conclusion. But his interpretation of the facts differed from that of Amarals. And in this lies the crux of the matter. Amaral is entitled under freedom of expression to do so. To interpret the facts and come to his own conclusion. Nowhere does it infer/the judges say that his theory carries equal weight to that of the Prosecutors or that his theory is logic, based on police work and factually correct. That was not the issue being examined. The freedom of expression was.
"Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts." - Emphasis on interpretation that HE does of those facts. In no way is that a validation of the actual theory.
Important to note!! One must also be very wary of the translation of Portuguese to English in court transcripts. Often the meaning of something is changed in translation.
What, like Paiva's comment about Amatal's theory stopping other lines of enquiry or is this the 'selective' mistranslations again ?
-
What, like Paiva's comment about Amatal's theory stopping other lines of enquiry or is this the 'selective' mistranslations again ?
The issue you just raised here, is being discussed on another thread.
-
It's a big "so what" don't you think? Why else would it have been raised in court.
Launched 3 days after. Here is a copy of my post for you to read again.
Amaral LAUNCHED his book 24 July 2008. The case was shelved 21 July 2008. So he had written his book making use of case information that was still under secrecy law and then PUBLISHED IT PRIOR TO THE SHELVING DATE and waited 3 days after the notice of shelving had been given, then launched his book.
You can pick over a few days technically, fact is, Duarte picked up on it and wanted to start another action over it, both against Mr Amaral and the TV company and book publishers, didnt she get sent away with a flea in her ear? IE no one cared. it was decided he had not broken any law. It was considered vexatious. And you still didnt answer my questions of what info was in Mr Amarals book that he was not privy to? His book ENDED OCTOBER 07 when he was taken off the case. much ado about nothing.
Would you like Jane Tanner to be prosecuted for breaking the judicial secrecy laws when she went on Panorama in November 07? I guess your answer is NO. Best drop it already and its off topic.
-
One can't eliminate the presents of an abductor (forensic evidence) because of the contaminated crime scene but one can eliminate the presents of cadaver/death because there is no forensic evidence to support the dog alerts.
And that is where you are wrong. There are no forensic tests in existence to corroborate a cadaver dogs alert to remnant scent.The blood dog can add information, ie that there is blood, in the same spot and it could be blood and a death,but this is as far as dog intelligence can go. Taken together, the two dog alerts can signify the presence of the remnant scent of a dead body which has been removed and the presence of blood or, seeing as Eddie could alert to blood also, proof of blood in a spot. You see, you just cannot eliminate the possibility of remnant body scent, as the blood dog failed to find blood in several places that the cadaver dog had alerted and that blood dog is never wrong.
You have to ask yourself why the Mccanns went out of their way to trash the dogs from day one until Kates book writing rubbish about them
-
Lets exam this 'Judge gave Amarals thesis equal status' malarkey. It seems that some people use selective quotes to try prove a point when they forget that those selected statements read in context doesn't necessarily carry the same meaning as what the person using the out of context statements are claiming.
We have the case of a missing child and then we have the issue of the book that was written on the case.
The judges comment stems from the court case in which Amaral was being sued for libel; his theory that the parents are responsible for Madeleine’s death and concealment of her body.
The entire 'tone' of the court proceedings was to establish if Amaral had the right to express his views, which is not the same as determining whether his theory was correct. That was clearly demonstrated by the so called facts he stated in the book which were contrary to the facts in the police files. Take the interpretation of the forensic reports as an example.
The court case was based on whether Amaral had the right to freely express his opinion. And whether that freedom overruled the right of the McCann's being libelled.
The difficulty lies in the fact that the Portuguese and English (UK) law differ in their approach to libel laws. While you can’t publish the book in the UK because it breaches libel laws, it is allowed in Portugal under freedom of expression where it seems libel takes second place to an individual’s right to have ones reputation protected against harm. In other words being called or indirectly labelled a child murderer without evidence, which would stand up in a court of law, harms ones reputation.
Taking into context the reason for court case against Amarals book, it is clear that the judges expressed their ruling on the basis that Amaral had as much right to state his theory as did the Attorney General or any other whose professional view WAS based on fact; ruling not based on factual correctness of the theory but the right to express himself. The equality demonstrated on grounds of right of expression and not any other grounds.
In summary: The judge made a ruling on the issue of Amaral being able to exercise his right of expression/freedom of expression, but this DOES NOT VALIDATE THE CONTENT of the theory but mealy the principle that he was allowed to express that theory. In this context (as it was implied in the first instance). The expression/the right to voice his theory carried as much weights as any other, but it does not imply that the contents of that theory is correct or has any equal weight to any other.
Conclusion: It is therefore incorrect to claim the judges said Amarals theory holds as much weight as any others.
If your argument is correct,re the judges weighing on the side of freedom of expression only,and they unbanned his book, then why on earth is a libel trial going ahead? When it failed in the first instance?On what basis?
>@@(*&)
Oh and Albertini, the Mccans and friends were vehemently OPPOSED to going back to Portugal for a reconstruction,EVER, various pathetic reasons. Kates was it would be too emotional, jane was she was terrified reliving it, etc..the rest said I am too busy or too angry, its evident they were not interested in any way shape or form despite saying they would do anything
-
Red
How often are we going to be going over this?
The Mccanns wanted a reconstruction in the early days, but Amaral refused for some reason.
Then came that fateful Arguido meeting in Portimao where Amaral falsely accused Gerry of having carried Madeleines body in their hire car, saying falsely that Eddie had proved it.
Gery knew this was a downright lie, because he knew she had been abducted. That there was no body and he KNEW she hadn't been carried in the car. He realsed that they were being set up.
They had been warned about being set up earlier by Leonor Ciprianos partner Leandro ... and also probably by the British Consul/ Embassy who would know about Leonor being set up, and also more pertinently, about Michael Cook. How he had been set up against all the evidence and spent, (was it?)16 years smoldering in a PT jail, for an offence he didn't do.
They knew that the purpose of this "reconstruction" was not to find Madeleine but to set them up. THe Tapas group also knew that.
Thank goodness they never returned whilst Amaral was in charge !!
For anyone who is reading and doesn't know, Amaral. in his book, claimed that the day after the abduction he had already decided that it was not an abduction. No reasons ! Jeez !
-
Red
How often are we going to be going over this?
The Mccanns wanted a reconstruction in the early days, but Amaral refused for some reason.
Then came that fateful Arguido meeting in Portimao where Amaral falsely accused Gerry of having carried Madeleines body in their hire car, saying falsely that Eddie had proved it.
Gery knew this was a downright lie, because he knew she had been abducted. That there was no body and he KNEW she hadn't been carried in the car. He realsed that they were being set up.
They had been warned about being set up earlier by Leonor Ciprianos partner Leandro ... and also probably by the British Consul/ Embassy who would know about Leonor being set up, and also more pertinently, about Michael Cook. How he had been set up against all the evidence and spent, (was it?)16 years smoldering in a PT jail, for an offence he didn't do.
They knew that the purpose of this "reconstruction" was not to find Madeleine but to set them up. THe Tapas group also knew that.
Thank goodness they never returned whilst Amaral was in charge !!
For anyone who is reading and doesn't know, Amaral. in his book, claimed that the day after the abduction he had already decided that it was not an abduction. No reasons ! Jeez !
More fantasies yet again of being set up.
Pure fantasies. 8-)(--) 8-)(--)
-
Red
How often are we going to be going over this?
The Mccanns wanted a reconstruction in the early days, but Amaral refused for some reason.
Then came that fateful Arguido meeting in Portimao where Amaral falsely accused Gerry of having carried Madeleines body in their hire car, saying falsely that Eddie had proved it.
Gery knew this was a downright lie, because he knew she had been abducted. That there was no body and he KNEW she hadn't been carried in the car. He realsed that they were being set up.
They had been warned about being set up earlier by Leonor Ciprianos partner Leandro ... and also probably by the British Consul/ Embassy who would know about Leonor being set up, and also more pertinently, about Michael Cook. How he had been set up against all the evidence and spent, (was it?)16 years smoldering in a PT jail, for an offence he didn't do.
They knew that the purpose of this "reconstruction" was not to find Madeleine but to set them up. THe Tapas group also knew that.
Thank goodness they never returned whilst Amaral was in charge !!
For anyone who is reading and doesn't know, Amaral. in his book, claimed that the day after the abduction he had already decided that it was not an abduction. No reasons ! Jeez !
Let's hope you feel the same way sadie when witnesses won't cooperate with SY because of their record with regard to 'fitting' people up.
-
Let's hope you feel the same way sadie when witnesses won't cooperate with SY because of their record with regard to 'fitting' people up.
I have never seen anything so blattent as Faro / Portimao PJ
To mention just a few:
Michael Cook
Leonor Cipriano
Joao Cipriano
Jacintha Rees
then the ?deliberate ignoring of the abductions of:
Carolina Santos
Rene Hasse
All these in just one corner of PT, The Algarve
With a miniscule population when related to the whole of the UK.
Get your relative " police-fit-up-crime proportions " right, Faith
And in the British case, faults are re-examined.
Give me some examples of that happening in PT
-
For anyone who is reading and doesn't know, Amaral. in his book, claimed that the day after the abduction he had already decided that it was not an abduction. No reasons ! Jeez !
Yes that is very true but not just Señor Amaral thought that. The evidence should you choose to believe it was stacking up even after 24 hours.
-
Yes that is very true but not just Señor Amaral thought that. The evidence should you choose to believe it was stacking up even after 24 hours.
Care to specify what evidence, John?
-
Now who said this ?
"One good thing to come out of all of this is that there is so much in the press, nobody knows what is true, and what isn't."
-
Yes that is very true but not just Señor Amaral thought that. The evidence should you choose to believe it was stacking up even after 24 hours.
Could you elaborate on that John, what evidence are you referring to?
-
I am talking about the reasons why Señor Amaral and his colleagues considered the McCanns as suspects as early as the day after Madeleine's disappearance. These include the very obvious inconsistences in the original statements, the early forensics which indicated that no-one had climbed into or out of the childrens bedroom through the window and Kates reticence when asked to return to Portimão when photos of a girl matching Madeleine's description were retrieved from CCTV cameras at a service station on the motorway which links Lagos with the Spanish border.
Their suspicions were also raised when they realised that the British Press had been informed before the Portuguese Police resulting in a situation whereby the police were finding it increasingly difficult to do their work. They were in fact being thwarted in their investigative work and experienced an ever increasing political interference as time went by.
-
I am talking about the reasons why Señor Amaral and his colleagues considered the McCanns as suspects as early as the day after Madeleine's disappearance. These include the very obvious inconsistences in the original statements, the early forensics which indicated that no-one had climbed into or out of the childrens bedroom through the window and Kates reticence when asked to return to Portimão when photos of a girl matching Madeleine's description were retrieved from CCTV cameras at a service station on the motorway which links Lagos with the Spanish border.
Their suspicions were also raised when they realised that the British Press had been informed before the Portuguese Police resulting in a situation whereby the police were finding it increasingly difficult to do their work.
John, none of what you are saying happened within 24 hours after Madeleine's disappearance? And I'm sorry but what you say about the British Press being informed before the PT police is just not true.
-
John, none of what you are saying happened within 24 hours after Madeleine's disappearance? And I'm sorry but what you say about the British Press being informed before the PT police is just not true.
This all happened the following day ie Friday 4th May. Call it 30 hours if you like!
Are you denying that Sky News and the BBC had the story even before the PJ had been informed?
-
I have never seen anything so blattent as Faro / Portimao PJ
To mention just a few:
Michael Cook
Leonor Cipriano
Joao Cipriano
Jacintha Rees
then the ?deliberate ignoring of the abductions of:
Carolina Santos
Rene Hasse
All these in just one corner of PT, The Algarve
With a miniscule population when related to the whole of the UK.
Get your relative " police-fit-up-crime proportions " right, Faith
And in the British case, faults are re-examined.
Give me some examples of that happening in PT
Carolina Santos was not abducted, there wasnt even an attempted one, told you this before!
-
This all happened the following day ie Friday 4th May. Call it 30 hours if you like!
Are you denying that Sky News and the BBC had the story even before the PJ had been informed?
The Sky News business is completely untrue and was debunked a long time ago. I'm surprised at you, John, for regurgitating such falsehoods.
-
I am talking about the reasons why Señor Amaral and his colleagues considered the McCanns as suspects as early as the day after Madeleine's disappearance. These include the very obvious inconsistences in the original statements, the early forensics which indicated that no-one had climbed into or out of the childrens bedroom through the window and Kates reticence when asked to return to Portimão when photos of a girl matching Madeleine's description were retrieved from CCTV cameras at a service station on the motorway which links Lagos with the Spanish border.
Their suspicions were also raised when they realised that the British Press had been informed before the Portuguese Police resulting in a situation whereby the police were finding it increasingly difficult to do their work. They were in fact being thwarted in their investigative work and experienced an ever increasing political interference as time went by.
I'm not sure what you are basing that on John. Below are Kate's and Amarals description of that event. .
Which version would you say was the most likely - considering this was the day after Madeleine had been abducted - and also considering that Amaral has never met them or spoken to them in his life.
From Kates book
It was seven thirty by the time one of the PJ officers drove us away from the polilce station. Angela Morado came with us. Ten or fifteen minutes into our journey the police officer had a call from his station. He said something to Angela, who explained that he'd been ordered to return us to the police station straight away. He wasn't allowed to tell us why. Already driving at quite a scary speed, he suddenly swung the car into a U turn, floored the accelerator and drove us at a life-threatening 120mph plus back towards Portimao. I cannot overstate how terrifying this was. Had Madeleline been found? Please God. Was she alive? Was she dead? Gerry and I clung on to each other for dear life. I was crying hysterically and praying for all I was worth.
Back at the police station we endured at least another ten minutes of torture in the waiting area before somebody showed us a photograh,clearly taken from CCTV, of a blond child with a woman in a petrol-station shop. We weren't told anything about this, just asked whether the little girl was Madeleine. . She wasn't. And that was that. Again we were sent on our way, utterly devastated.
From Amarals book
FIRST EYE WITNESS STATEMENTS; KATE HEALY'S SURPRISING REACTION
Madeleine's parents are already back in Vila da Luz when we receive photos taken on an area of the motorway: you can make out the figure of a little girl, who looks like Madeleine, accompanied by a couple. These images come from a CCTV camera on the motorway linking Lagos to the Spanish border. The McCanns are asked to come to Portimao in order to proceed to an identification. It's the end of the day. Kate Healy seems annoyed at coming back and made uncomfortable by the speed of the police car taking her. We are somewhat astonished by her reaction, as if she was not expecting to get her daughter back. The identification turns out negative.
----------------
IMO opinion in those circumstances - to call them back like that with no explanation, even if it was unintentional, bordered on the sadistic.
-
Carolina Santos was not abducted, there wasnt even an attempted one, told you this before!
Yes she was, but it was frustrated by her parents seeing the abductor walking her away.
-
Yes she was, but it was frustrated by her parents seeing the baductor walking her away.
According to who?
Read some facts here, May 2007, NOT December 2006, best stick to PT broadsheets than Brit redtops
http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/mccann-propaganda.html
-
Steel Magnolia?
You have to be joking
-
Steel Magnolia?
You have to joking
the message dear not the messenger, now what is your source
-
The Sky News business is completely untrue and was debunked a long time ago. I'm surprised at you, John, for regurgitating such falsehoods.
BBC were called around midnight, before Pj arrived werent they?
-
I am talking about the reasons why Señor Amaral and his colleagues considered the McCanns as suspects as early as the day after Madeleine's disappearance. These include the very obvious inconsistences in the original statements, the early forensics which indicated that no-one had climbed into or out of the childrens bedroom through the window and Kates reticence when asked to return to Portimão when photos of a girl matching Madeleine's description were retrieved from CCTV cameras at a service station on the motorway which links Lagos with the Spanish border.
Their suspicions were also raised when they realised that the British Press had been informed before the Portuguese Police resulting in a situation whereby the police were finding it increasingly difficult to do their work. They were in fact being thwarted in their investigative work and experienced an ever increasing political interference as time went by.
You are wrong, John.
Amaral concidered them suspects, on the 4th May.
He was in a bar when he had a phone call at midnight. He went home, and to bed.
He hadn't been into work, and no statements had been taken, when he said.
Friday May 4th
This morning I am worried; something isn't right in the account of the events: the little girl allegedly disappeared at 10pm while she was sleeping close to her brother and her sister. They were alone in the apartment because their parents were dining with friends. A system of checks had been put in place by the adults. Every 30 minutes according to some - every quarter of an hour according to others -, someone went to have a look at the children. It is Madeleine's mother who realised she was gone and is immediately talking about abduction.
We need information about the parents and their friends, to know who they are, what they do, if they have problems in their country, if the children were victims of abuse, if the family, neighbours, friends could have noticed any suspicious behaviour, what are their jobs, if they work full-time, etc. Is any member of their family depressed or suffered from depression in the past? Do the couple maintain good relationships? Are they implicated in serious litigation? Do they have enemies? For what reason? So, I telephone Glen Powers, the English liaison officer in Portugal, inform him of events and request that he relay our requests for reports. We consider these to be of the greatest importance and await sensitive responses to guide our investigation.
While I am on the phone and my daughters are sleeping, Sofia makes breakfast for me. She is quiet and regards me with a questioning look, as if she suspects that from today, she won't see much of me. It's not the first time this has happened: she knew that I wouldn't count my time in a case like this.
FIRST INTERROGATIONS AND REQUESTS TO THE BRITISH POLICE FOR INFORMATION
-
Steel Magnolia?
You have to joking
ROFL! It's a bit like quoting W. Mitty as a source isn't it! @)(++(*
-
You are wrong, John.
Amaral concidered them suspects, on the 4th May.
He was in a bar when he had a phone call at midnight. He went home, and to bed.
Any particular reason why are misconstruing facts? Err he had a phone call in a BAR but just went to bed and did nothing? Poor
@)(++(*
ANNOUNCEMENT OF A DISAPPEARANCE: THE FIRST SEVENTY-TWO HOURS
On this evening, May 3rd 2007, I decide to dine at the Carvi Brasserie, in the centre of Portimão, before going home. I have been living for a year in this town, where I lead the Department of Criminal Investigation of the police judiciaire. In 1982, when I was 23 and I had just taken up this career, I had already gone there. There, I had made the acquaintance of someone who was to become my friend, Manuel João. Former local official and sporty, a charismatic person. He always lent a hand to members of the police judiciaire who went to the town for the purposes of an investigation. As an elected local official, he originated the creation of a police judiciaire department in Portimão. Thus, that evening, while savouring fruits de mer, we discuss the problems of Portuguese society.
It is midnight when I receive the news about the disappearance of a little four-year-old English girl. The police officer on call was informed about it by the National Guard of The Republic (GNR) At the time of her disappearance, the little girl was supposed to have been sleeping in an apartment while her parents were dining a hundred metres away. An inspector is sent to the scene immediately to establish the initial facts. A forensic expert assigned to security of the premises will join him. All precautions are taken to preserve possible clues and elements of evidence. I demand to be informed very regularly and, before going home, I call on the police on duty to check that all urgent measures are underway. The head of the Guard has already alerted the police authorities at Faro airport and the control post set up on the Guadiana* bridge.
(*The river on the frontier between Portugal and Spain.)
THE REPORTS LEAVE A LOT TO BE DESIRED
The examination of the premises by the investigator and the representative of the forensic police just after the announcement of the disappearance turns out to be quite unproductive. A concise report, where their observations are written up, is accompanied by numerous photographs taken inside and outside apartment 5A – which don’t give an account of, according to us, everything they could have observed. This error is explained by the absence of procedures in case of a child’s disappearance, notably concerning the actions to be taken when examining the scene.
Lots of people were already in place; however, nobody appeared in the photos. We don’t know, for example, how they were dressed. Such observations can turn out to be important later on. The report mentions that the twins were asleep in their bed, but there is no proof to confirm it; on the contrary, in the photographs, you can see empty cots, where only the mattresses remain – the sheets and blankets having been removed. Why have their beds been stripped? If the sheets had not been removed, traces of their presence could have been found there.
That evening, on arriving home, I see Inès, my younger daughter, who is sleeping close to my wife, Sofia. In silence, in the dim light of the bedroom, I sit on the edge of the bed. Outside, far from her mother’s warmth, a child of the same age is lost. Sofia wakes up and asks me what is happening. I tell her about Madeleine’s disappearance and instinctively, she holds our daughter tightly in her arms and makes room for me.
I make lots of phone calls and send a text message to the director of the Faro Department of Criminal Investigation (DIC): child, English, aged 4, disappeared from a Praia da Luz hotel. It’s sufficient. Reading the message, he will understand the gravity of the situation. Three years before, we had dealt with a similar case, a few kilometres from Praia da Luz. We had not been informed at the time of that disappearance, and we are convinced that if the investigation could have been started immediately we would have been able to discover some physical evidence. The police response is fundamental. The first 72 hours are essential.
-
ROFL! It's a bit like quoting W. Mitty as a source isn't it! @)(++(*
do YOU have a credible source then RG? For the story over and above the broadsheets in PT? no use laughing at a link, its the related and pertinent content that should matter to you
>@@(*&)
no, didnt think so
8)--))
-
You are wrong, John.
Amaral considered them suspects, on the 4th May.
Haven't I just said that, various events came together during the 4th May to make him and his detectives even more suspicious of the story being told to them.
Whatever his initial view was at breakfast time following the receipt of various reports from his men on the ground his suspicions had by the end of the day firmly increased when he was told of various other events.
It certainly appears that Amaral only considered the abduction claim for a matter of hours.
-
Haven't I just said that, various events came together during the 4th May to make him and his detectives even more suspicious of the story being told to them.
Are you saying Amaral, got all that info from the detectives before breakfast. He had made his mind up before any various events came together. He was in court being made an arguido at 6 pm, on the 4th May, so he sure worked fast! IMOOC!
-
Haven't I just said that, various events came together during the 4th May to make him and his detectives even more suspicious of the story being told to them.
Whatever his initial view was at breakfast time following the receipt of various reports from his men on the ground his suspicions had by the end of the day firmly increased when he was told of various other events.
It certainly appears that Amaral only considered the abduction claim for a matter of hours.
I think you need to retract your claim that Sky News were called before the police, John, It is just not true.
-
Are you saying Amaral, got all that info from the detectives before breakfast. He had made his mind up before any various events came together. He was in court being made an arguido at 6 pm, on the 4th May, so he sure worked fast! IMOOC!
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Backslapping six times?
@)(++(*
how sad
-
I think you need to retract your claim that Sky News were called before the police, John, It is just not true.
I never mentioned telephoning the British Press but it is known that it was the McCann family back in the UK who contacted the media a short time after Madeleine's disappearance was discovered and spread the falsehood that the shutter had been forced.
Señor Amaral certainly made the claim that the family were more concerned with contacting the media than they were with contacting the police. Thus his assertion that they contacted the UK media before contacting the police.
-
Are you saying Amaral, got all that info from the detectives before breakfast. He had made his mind up before any various events came together. He was in court being made an arguido at 6 pm, on the 4th May, so he sure worked fast! IMOOC!
I stated very precisely what his thoughts were both at breakfast time and as the day came to an end. I have no need to repeat myself!
-
I never mentioned telephoning the British Press but it is known that it was the McCann family back in the UK who contacted the media a short time after Madeleine's disappearance was discovered and spread the falsehood that the shutter had been forced.
Señor Amaral certainly made the claim that the family were more concerned with contacting the media than they were with contacting the police. Thus his assertion that they contacted the UK media before contacting the police.
Another Amaral lie, John. Rachel Oldfield contacted the BBC around midnight. If I'm correct, A family friend staying at the Healy's, at the time also contacted someone she knew, too. It was the press that contacted the family's, in the following days.
If Amaral made the claim that the family were more concerned with contacting the media, then why did he ask permission to do the same on the 4th May, with photo's of Madeleine?
-
To the MP and not to the PJ belongs the decision to launch a call for witnesses with the photo of the missing person. In certain cases the MP had to consult the judge.
-
Yes and he got his reply the same day ?>)()<
-
Yes and he got his reply the same day ?>)()<
And IIRC the PJ press release mentioned the mark in Madeleine's eye.
-
Possibly suggested by Mr McCann, sure "it was a good ploy.”
-
Possibly suggested by Mr McCann, sure "it was a good ploy.”
Erm? ... A good ploy?
What do you mean Anne?
-
Erm? ... A good ploy?
What do you mean Anne?
Yes according to Gerry in a vanity fair interview:
Although initially reluctant, the McCanns finally informed the media of Madeleine’s unique right eye—a risky revelation. Whoever had taken the child now held a universally recognizable little girl.
Gerry understood that. But, he says, the iris “is Madeleine’s only true distinctive feature. Certainly we thought it was possible that this could potentially hurt her or”—he grimaces—“her abductor might do something to her eye.… But in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy.”
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/02/mccanns200802
-
Yes according to Gerry in a vanity fair interview:
Although initially reluctant, the McCanns finally informed the media of Madeleine’s unique right eye—a risky revelation. Whoever had taken the child now held a universally recognizable little girl.
Gerry understood that. But, he says, the iris “is Madeleine’s only true distinctive feature. Certainly we thought it was possible that this could potentially hurt her or”—he grimaces—“her abductor might do something to her eye.… But in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy.”
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/02/mccanns200802
From Gerry Mccann.........................................
'.. a good marketing ploy..'
-
If that is what he said, it is an unfortunate choice of words, but we all use the wrong words occasionally.
What he meant was publicize ... very likely he had been given advice by people who specialize in publicizing things and they would commonly use the term marketting, because much of their publicizing was about marketting.
Unfortunately seems he latched on to their words.
We all do that sort of thing from time to time
You are making something out of nothing here
-
If that is what he said, it is an unfortunate choice of words, but we all use the wrong words occasionally.
What he meant was publicize ... very likely he had been given advice by people who specialize in publicizing things and they would commonly use the term marketting, because much of their publicizing was about marketting.
Unfortunately seems he latched on to their words.
We all do that sort of thing from time to time
You are making something out of nothing here
No I'm not.
It says everything about the mind set of the Mccanns.
i.e. MONEY.
-
If that is what he said, it is an unfortunate choice of words, but we all use the wrong words occasionally.
What he meant was publicize ... very likely he had been given advice by people who specialize in publicizing things and they would commonly use the term marketting, because much of their publicizing was about marketting.
Unfortunately seems he latched on to their words.
We all do that sort of thing from time to time
You are making something out of nothing here
Actually Sadie the advice from all the experts regarding missing children is that to give them the best chance of being found you have to basically 'advertise' them - as you would any other product you wanted the public to know about.
One of the best examples of that IMO is having their faces on milk cartons - imagine the millions of people who would see them that way. I'm not sure that has ever been done in the UK - if not I wonder why not - as it seems a brilliant idea to me. Other ways are to see their faces on billboards or projected onto buildings by laser. 'Marketing' may sound a harsh term to use, but if that is the best approach, and more likely to get results than any other way - then any parent of a missing child is going to want to do it.
I read an article once from 'the experts' giving exactly this advice. When I get time I'll see if I can find it.
-
Actually Sadie the advice from all the experts regarding missing children is that to give them the best chance of being found you have to basically 'advertise' them - as you would any other product you wanted the public to know about.
One of the best examples of that IMO is having their faces on milk cartons - imagine the millions of people who would see them that way. I'm not sure that has ever been done in the UK - if not I wonder why not - as it seems a brilliant idea to me. Other ways are to see their faces on billboards or projected onto buildings by laser. 'Marketing' may sound a harsh term to use, but if that is the best approach, and more likely to get results than any other way - then any parent of a missing child is going to want to do it.
I read an article once from 'the experts' giving exactly this advice. When I get time I'll see if I can find it.
I couldn't agree more Benice .... and marketting is the correct term for it.
Unfortunately with some of the [ censored word ]s minds, they twist it into something sinister. Stephen above is on about MONEY for instance. (sadie rolls eyes in disgust)
Cant he see the bigger picture?
-
If that is what he said, it is an unfortunate choice of words, but we all use the wrong words occasionally.
What he meant was publicize ... very likely he had been given advice by people who specialize in publicizing things and they would commonly use the term marketting, because much of their publicizing was about marketting.
Unfortunately seems he latched on to their words.
We all do that sort of thing from time to time
You are making something out of nothing here
So how do the two gel, Gerrys marketing ploy using Madeleines eye defect, and everyone has seen the LOOK campaign, and Kate Mccann saying they never really made much of it?
Confusing isnt it?
-
So how do the two gel, Gerrys marketing ploy using Madeleines eye defect, and everyone has seen the LOOK campaign, and Kate Mccann saying they never really made much of it?
Confusing isnt it?
I haven't read kates words in context, so cant really comment.
But, in any case, you cant compare the words of two people and expect exactly the same emotions / thoughts / responses from them both. Doesn't happen, Red
-
One of the best examples of that IMO is having their faces on milk cartons - imagine the millions of people who would see them that way.
You know whose face inaugurated this ? And what happened after ?
-
So how do the two gel, Gerrys marketing ploy using Madeleines eye defect, and everyone has seen the LOOK campaign, and Kate Mccann saying they never really made much of it?
Confusing isnt it?
Actually I'm pretty sure Mrs McCann was right saying it was hardly noticeable. Madeleine's eyes aren't clear, so only looking very close and knowing what you have to find.
On the toddler photo, the coloboma is visible. Paradoxically they published a photo which didn't look like Madeleine when she disappeared in order to exhibit a default that nobody would notice !
But as well why would you publish a looking like photo when you can publish a not looking like one ?
-
Actually I'm pretty sure Mrs McCann was right saying it was hardly noticeable. Madeleine's eyes aren't clear, so only looking very close and knowing what you have to find.
On the toddler photo, the coloboma is visible. Paradoxically they published a photo which didn't look like Madeleine when she disappeared in order to exhibit a default that nobody would notice !
But as well why would you publish a looking like photo when you can publish a not looking like one ?
And you KNOW what Madeleine looked like when she disappeared, do you, Anne, so that you can state, so categorically, that they published a photo that did not look like Madeleine?
If you were a suspect in this case, that would have been a highly incriminating comment!
-
And you KNOW what Madeleine looked like when she disappeared, do you, Anne, so that you can state, so categorically, that they published a photo that did not look like Madeleine?
If you were a suspect in this case, that would have been a highly incriminating comment!
What are you talking about, Chinagirl ? Haven't you seen the photos of Madeleine on the PDL court and on the PDL playground ?
-
I have probably seen all the photos of Madeleine that have been published, and have no difficulty in accepting that they are all of Madeleine. I don't know what you are getting at that any of them are not how she looked when she disappeared. I have never met her, and presume neither have you, so how do you know that one (or some) of them don't look like her? Surely you are not implying that some other child is being passed off as Madeleine?
-
IMO It's obvious why they used the now iconic photograh of Madeleine. It was chosen because it showed her full face - with every aspect of her individual facial features clearly defined - i.e. the colour of her eyes, the shape of her eyebrows, her nose, her chin, and her hair etc. So for identification purposes therefore - they thought that was the best one to use.
IMO.
-
IMO It's obvious why they used the now iconic photograh of Madeleine. It was chosen because it showed her full face - with every aspect of her individual facial features clearly defined - i.e. the colour of her eyes, the shape of her eyebrows, her nose, her chin, and her hair etc. So for identification purposes therefore - they thought that was the best one to use.
IMO.
That seems logical to me as well. They needed a photo that would help distinguish her from other little blonde girls.
-
That seems logical to me as well. They needed a photo that would help distinguish her from other little blonde girls.
But it didn't. See the hundreds of false sightings 100% sure ! Even a little boy.
And remember Bridget OD not sure whether Madeleine was among pink and blond little girls.
-
But it didn't. See the hundreds of false sightings 100% sure ! Even a little boy.
And remember Bridget OD not sure whether Madeleine was among pink and blond little girls.
Most peple do not have very deserning abilities at facial recognition. If certain features are the same then without looking at the other features, in their mind, they identify it as the person.
People want to help. Even if they believe it is the missing person and are wrong, better to have reported rather than to have not bothered.
Cos some of them may well be correct.
-
Variations of the dark brutal man with a fair scared child cliché ! Ah and always 100% sure !
-
I haven't read kates words in context, so cant really comment.
But, in any case, you cant compare the words of two people and expect exactly the same emotions / thoughts / responses from them both. Doesn't happen, Red
Ths has nothing whatsoever to do with emotions and thoughts, its to do with FACTS
fact 1 - Gerry thought it was a good marketing ploy to use Maddies eye defect in advertising even when warned by police not to and even when he thought there was a chance to an abductor damaging it, source as given, Vanity Fair interview, and we all kniw what a massive LOOK campaign comprised of, the EYE
fact 2 - Kate Mccann said theynever made anything much of this, total contradiction
MORGAN: Madeleine had a very distinctive eye pattern, didn't she? Tell me about that, Kate, in case people see somebody they think may be Madeleine. Tell me about her eye.
K. MCCANN: If I'm honest, we haven't put too much emphasis on her eye, because I think you have to be very close to her to see it. But her eyes are slightly different colors, and one of them has this brown fleck in it. But you do notice, particularly on photographs, but --
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1105/11/pmt.01.html
-
Of course it is to do withn the different thoughts of two individual people.
My hubby and I are always describing the same thing with different emphasis, depending on the way each sees it .. and the way one sees things depends on their emotions
Somewhere recently on thgis forum, it was said that Amaral was the first to publicize the eye defect. Is that correct?