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: icabodcrane on September 25, 2013, 05:14:27 PM
-
From the Public Prosecutor's final report
... " it was not possible to ... formulate any lucid, sensate and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment ( Whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction ) nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive, or if she is dead, as seems more likely"
-
From the Public Prosecutor's final report
... " it was not possible to ... formulate any lucid, sensate and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment ( Whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction ) nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive, or if she is dead, as seems more likely"
Obviously the Attorney General left the option open to cover an accidental death as in manslaughter or an intended death as in murder.
-
From the Public Prosecutor's final report
... " it was not possible to ... formulate any lucid, sensate and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment ( Whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction ) nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive, or if she is dead, as seems more likely"
So, in plain language - the PJ bungled it and don't have a clue.
-
From the Public Prosecutor's final report
... " it was not possible to ... formulate any lucid, sensate and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment ( Whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction ) nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive, or if she is dead, as seems more likely"
Do you have the original Portuguese as Im not sure about some of thetranslations
-
So, in plain language - the PJ bungled it and don't have a clue.
Outsmarted would be more appropriate and that applies irrespective of who was to blame.
-
Outsmarted would be more appropriate.
Whatever the lexicon John, they cocked up big-time. After all, from 4 May the co-ordinator had the parents down as complicit.
-
Whatever the lexicon John, they cocked up big-time. After all, from 4 May the co-ordinator had the parents down as complicit.
How do you know they weren't right - as this has not been decided yet? Maybe they nailed it first time and are, in fact, awesomely good. It is, without doubt, a possibility.
-
I think the final report was an act of total humiliation, so along with the facts...such as there is no evidence against the McCanns , the Portuguese had to put in a few little asides to desperately try to save face
-
Top paragraph.
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P17/17_VOLUME_XVIIa_Page_4647.jpg)
I think in this particular case the translation is pretty accurate.
-
I have no idea what your point is in underlining one single part of this paragraph.
But thank you for posting so clearly the FACT that the final summary leaves open all options.
Whether dead or alive,
whether killed in a neglectful homicide
or an intended homicide,
whether the victim of a targeted abduction
or an opportunistic abduction...
You have exposed perfectly why Amaral's book is so wrong. There simply is no proof of any of these theses and for him to claim definitively in his book that little Madeleine McCann is dead is simply wrong.
The truth is nobody knows what happened to her.
I highlighted the neglectful homicide possibility because this post was originally made in reply to a question posed by ferryman
He accused people who added the word 'neglectful' of being outright deceitful
-
I think the final report was an act of total humiliation, so along with the facts...such as there is no evidence against the McCanns , the Portuguese had to put in a few little asides to desperately try to save face
I agree absolutely, there were asides within both the summary PJ report and within the Archival report defending themselves against media criticism.
-
From the Public Prosecutor's final report
... " it was not possible to ... formulate any lucid, sensate and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment ( Whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction ) nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive, or if she is dead, as seems more likely"
Thats not from the Public Prosecutor's final report though. Its the summary, from a Letter to the Attorney General regarding investigation details.
-
I have no idea what your point is in underlining one single part of this paragraph.
But thank you for posting so clearly the FACT that the final summary leaves open all options.
Whether dead or alive,
whether killed in a neglectful homicide
or an intended homicide,
whether the victim of a targeted abduction
or an opportunistic abduction...
You have exposed perfectly why Amaral's book is so wrong. There simply is no proof of any of these theses and for him to claim definitively in his book that little Madeleine McCann is dead is simply wrong.
The truth is nobody knows what happened to her.
So the final report does not include amarals conclusion that Maddie died in an accident
-
I highlighted the neglectful homicide possibility because this post was originally made in reply to a question posed by ferryman
He accused people who added the word 'neglectful' of being outright deceitful
A shame that that point wasn't made in the OP then.
But nonetheless I thank you again for exposing the fact that the conclusion of the case what that there was absolutely no conclusion as to what had happened to Madeleine McCann and that all those possibilities remain open to this day.
-
I have no idea what your point is in underlining one single part of this paragraph.
But thank you for posting so clearly the FACT that the final summary leaves open all options.
Whether dead or alive,
whether killed in a neglectful homicide
or an intended homicide,
whether the victim of a targeted abduction
or an opportunistic abduction...
You have exposed perfectly why Amaral's book is so wrong. There simply is no proof of any of these theses and for him to claim definitively in his book that little Madeleine McCann is dead is simply wrong.
The truth is nobody knows what happened to her.
So the final report does not include amarals conclusion that Maddie died in an accident
You are absolutely correct. That is one alternative not in the Archival report. Isn't that peculiar?
-
How do you know they weren't right - as this has not been decided yet? Maybe they nailed it first time and are, in fact, awesomely good. It is, without doubt, a possibility.
If they'd "nailed it", the McCanns would be behind bars.
As it happens, they weren't even arrested which I know gets up your nose CEd, but there you go!
-
What is significant, I think, is that when the case was archived the possibility that Madeleine had died in the apartment as a consequence of her parents negligence, was recognised
When related to the current trial, then, how can it be 'libel' to purport a theory that was still recognised as a possibility when the case was shelved ?
-
What is significant, I think, is that when the case was archived the possibility that Madeleine had died in the apartment as a consequence of her parents negligence, was recognised
When related to the current trial, then, how can it be 'libel' to purport a theory that was still recognised as a possibility when the case was shelved ?
because amaral called his book the TRUTH
-
because amaral called his book the TRUTH
It just doesn't seem like a very strong case to me
Amaral believes that it is truth that Madeleine died in the apartment as a result of her parents' negligence ... and the Public Prosecutor agrees that she might have
-
You are absolutely correct. That is one alternative not in the Archival report. Isn't that peculiar?
Isn't that what a neglectful homicide is Gilet...an accident following neglect?
-
Isn't that what a neglectful homicide is Gilet...an accident following neglect?
What else can it mean ?
It's what we call negligent manslaughter ... isn't it ?
-
A shame that that point wasn't made in the OP then.
But nonetheless I thank you again for exposing the fact that the conclusion of the case what that there was absolutely no conclusion as to what had happened to Madeleine McCann and that all those possibilities remain open to this day.
You'll need to take that up with John ... I didn't start this thread, my post was a reply to a thread started by ferryman who disagreed that the Public Prosecutor had included the possibility of negligent homicide as an explanation for Madeleine's disappearance when he archived the case
-
You'll need to take that up with John ... I didn't start this thread, my post was a reply to a thread started by ferryman who disagreed that the Public Prosecutor had included the possibility of negligent homicide as an explanation for Madeleine's disappearance when he archived the case
Not only disagreed, but accused people of being deceitful by including that word
@)(++(*
Another Ferryman lead balloon
@)(++(*
PS DCI, if that passage was not from the final archiving report, which it was by the way, letter and parts a and b of the report,can you link to the archiving report??? Where it apparently does NOT feature in???
>@@(*&)
-
What else can it mean ?
It's what we call negligent manslaughter ... isn't it ?
I thnk what gilet/davel were saying is that the final report did not have the *conclusion* that Madeleine died from an accident at home, just the possibility....whereas its the theoretical conclusion in Mr Amarals book
-
The Archival Report has to be taken as a whole, it cannot be dismantled and each bit discussed independently.
What resulted from that report was that despite many indications that a crime was committed and that certain persons could have been involved, the investigation was not concluded in order to charge those persons.
As the actual Procedure Penal Code demands that the investigation do not surpass certain time limits without the production of "proof", it was necessary to Archive the investigation in order to hold the counting of time - otherwise there was a risk that the crime would "prescribe" (impossible to be taken to a Trial).
-
Thats not from the Public Prosecutor's final report though. Its the summary, from a Letter to the Attorney General regarding investigation details.
A letter of 58 pages ?
-
Isn't that what a neglectful homicide is Gilet...an accident following neglect?
The final report doesn't contemplate here unintentional homicide, i.e manslaughter. For instance Madeleine wakes up because of a burglar, he gives her a blow because she's about to scream, she falls and breaks her crown.
-
The final report doesn't contemplate here unintentional homicide, i.e manslaughter. For instance Madeleine wakes up because of a burglar, he gives her a blow because she's about to scream, she falls and breaks her crown.
i think they did
Considering the participated facts, conjugated with the information that was offered. namely by the witnesses, and with the information that was made available through the development of the inquiry, the investigation equated the verification of several hypotheses: abduction, for the purpose of sexual exploration or others (i.e. posterior adoption, child traffic, organ traffic), without homicide; abduction, followed by homicide with (or without) concealment of a cadaver, hypotheses that were considered under the double sides of the abduction (if it existed) having occurred due to feelings of vengeance of the abductor(s) towards the parents (directed abduction) or simply taking advantage of the circumstance that the child was in a situation of actual vulnerability (opportunity abduction), accidental death, with posterior concealment of the cadaver and, underlying all of these possibilities, abandonment, substantiated as a crime under article 138 of the Penal Code. The possibility of theft, whose author would have been disturbed by the child Madeleine and who, in order to prevent her from disturbing him, neutralised her in a violent manner, and, afterwards, took her with him, dead or alive, in order to leave no trace that could eventually lead to his identification.
Eta sorry, that counts for intentional
-
i think they did
Considering the participated facts, conjugated with the information that was offered. namely by the witnesses, and with the information that was made available through the development of the inquiry, the investigation equated the verification of several hypotheses: abduction, for the purpose of sexual exploration or others (i.e. posterior adoption, child traffic, organ traffic), without homicide; abduction, followed by homicide with (or without) concealment of a cadaver, hypotheses that were considered under the double sides of the abduction (if it existed) having occurred due to feelings of vengeance of the abductor(s) towards the parents (directed abduction) or simply taking advantage of the circumstance that the child was in a situation of actual vulnerability (opportunity abduction), accidental death, with posterior concealment of the cadaver and, underlying all of these possibilities, abandonment, substantiated as a crime under article 138 of the Penal Code. The possibility of theft, whose author would have been disturbed by the child Madeleine and who, in order to prevent her from disturbing him, neutralised her in a violent manner, and, afterwards, took her with him, dead or alive, in order to leave no trace that could eventually lead to his identification.
Eta sorry, that counts for intentional
That could as well be unintentional. I see the report doesn't contemplate an accidental death including an author, as in the case of a child pushing another one to play and the other one falling (surely the worst that can happen) or even an adult giving a blow out of exasperation to an unbearable child..
-
That could as well be unintentional. I see the report doesn't contemplate an accidental death including an author, as in the case of a child pushing another one to play and the other one falling (surely the worst that can happen) or even an adult giving a blow out of exasperation to an unbearable child..
You are correct. The report does not countenance accidental death as was noted yesterday.
Goncalo Amaral is out on his own with that one. Its not supported by the report at all.
-
You are correct. The report does not countenance accidental death as was noted yesterday.
Goncalo Amaral is out on his own with that one. Its not supported by the report at all.
What scenario, then, do you think the Prosecuctor had in mind when concluded 'neglectful homicide' was a possibility ?
-
You are correct. The report does not countenance accidental death as was noted yesterday.
Goncalo Amaral is out on his own with that one. Its not supported by the report at all.
I'm not ! Read correctly : accidental death, with posterior concealment of the cadaver ...
What is not contemplated is the case of an accident unintentionally caused by someone, a child, an adult...
-
What scenario, then, do you think the Prosecuctor had in mind when concluded 'neglectful homicide' was a possibility ?
I looked at that earlier. Almost all the examples on VLex relate to driving offences.
But on another site (sorry I didn't bookmark it at the time) there was a necessity even in this form of homicide for the person committing the crime to have definite knowledge that the action could result in death.
Therefore (and I have to say I am not qualified to pronounce on this as I doubt anyone is here) I didn't think it related to accidental death.
-
I'm not ! Read correctly : accidental death, with posterior concealment of the cadaver ...
What is not contemplated is the case of an accident unintentionally caused be someone, a child, an adult...
I have tried to find a range of definitions of homicidio negligente and those I have found seem to indicate a need to understand that the action could cause death. I cannot see how that refers to accidents.
I shall be back online late tomorrow hopefully.
-
I looked at that earlier. Almost all the examples on VLex relate to driving offences.
But on another site (sorry I didn't bookmark it at the time) there was a necessity even in this form of homicide for the person committing the crime to have definite knowledge that the action could result in death.
Therefore (and I have to say I am not qualified to pronounce on this as I doubt anyone is here) I didn't think it related to accidental death.
I think it is most definately related to accidental death
I assumed from a previous post of yours that you were genuinely open minded and rational regarding the Public Prosecutor's conclusions
Cleary not
-
You leave a bottle of lemonade full of pure NaCl (sorry I don't know the name) or, even worse, H2SO4. Somebody suffering anosmia finds it and drinks. Is it accidental homicide or homicide through neglect ? Neither one nor the other I suppose, if the person isn't a familiar of your place.
A man blows the woman he has a passionate affair with in a violent discussion. She falls and breaks her head on the corner of a marble table. She dies, he gets a 6 years sentence This is a true story (Marie Trintignant/Bertrand Cantat). Accidental homicide ? How can you, in this kind of situation, foresee the disaster ?
-
From the Public Prosecutor's final report
... " it was not possible to ... formulate any lucid, sensate and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment ( Whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction ) nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive, or if she is dead, as seems more likely"
So was this from the final report or is the whole thread based upon an untruth...or had it been said by the McCanns...a lie
-
I think it is most definately related to accidental death
I assumed from a previous post of yours that you were genuinely open minded and rational regarding the Public Prosecutor's conclusions
Cleary not
I think it is most definately ...
You can't think most definitely
You are either definite or you think
With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records.
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance, their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses, the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports… None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later; there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless
…. Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order:
… b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure".
-
I think it is most definately ...
You can't think most definitely
You are either definite or you think
perhaps hes just a bit definite
@)(++(*
-
I looked at that earlier. Almost all the examples on VLex relate to driving offences.
But on another site (sorry I didn't bookmark it at the time) there was a necessity even in this form of homicide for the person committing the crime to have definite knowledge that the action could result in death.
Therefore (and I have to say I am not qualified to pronounce on this as I doubt anyone is here) I didn't think it related to accidental death.
Ridiculous. If there was intent it would be first degree homicide. What you english call manslaughter is neglectful or accidental homicide.
What every report alludes, either from the PJ as from the Attorney General is that most probably there was an accidental death covered up by the parents. And in this case, it's the covering up that is a crime aggravated by the situation of neglect .
-
So was this from the final report or is the whole thread based upon an untruth...or had it been said by the McCanns...a lie
Of course it was fron the final archiving PP report, where the hell do you think it came from then?