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: Angelo222 on September 27, 2013, 09:44:04 AM
Title: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Angelo222 on September 27, 2013, 09:44:04 AM
Who say he said "they are suspected to be involved". Isn't it legitimate to suspect parents to be involved ? Is it outrageous to suspect them when they refuse to answer to police questions, even if it's a right ? Is it a blaspheme to think they didn't say all the truth when they don't claim in the media they're so sorry that their acquaintances found it useless to do a reconstitution ?
Yes, the reconstruction Anne (as we say in England)
Had the tapas 9 wanted to do everything possible to help in the Madeleine case they would have been falling over each other to get back to Praia da Luz in order to take part in a reconstruction. Truth however is very different which for me says it all.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: gilet on September 27, 2013, 06:09:29 PM
Yes, the reconstruction Anne (as we say in England)
Had the tapas 9 wanted to do everything possible to help in the Madeleine case they would have been falling over each other to get back to Praia da Luz in order to take part in a reconstruction. Truth however is very different which for me says it all.
Please tell us what the reconstruction (as envisaged) by the PJ would actually have achieved. How, specifically, would it have helped find the missing child?
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: gilet on September 28, 2013, 04:01:07 PM
Unless SY meanwhile manages to determine the crime, i.e of course necessarily of abduction, a crime, as the AG deplored it, the McCanns couldn't demonstrate since their friends rejected the reconstitution. This sounds like millions of pounds were wasted.
That you should post such a lie is most odd.
Whether the AG deplored it or not, the fact remains that under neither UK nor Portuguese criminal codes is it invumbent on the defendant to prove his innocence.
And whether he deplored it or not you seem to be forgetting that the AG stated that there were four possible options as to what happened to Madeleine. Two variants of murder and two variants of abduction.
That is the reality.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: icabodcrane on September 28, 2013, 06:19:03 PM
Whether the AG deplored it or not, the fact remains that under neither UK nor Portuguese criminal codes is it invumbent on the defendant to prove his innocence.
And whether he deplored it or not you seem to be forgetting that the AG stated that there were four possible options as to what happened to Madeleine. Two variants of murder and two variants of abduction.
That is the reality.
That is not the reality
The Public Prosecutor did not allow for two variants of 'murder' ... he allowed for two variants of 'homicide'
There is a very important distinction between the two
When the Prosecutor concluded that there was a possibility of 'Intended Homicide' he was, indeed, allowing for the possiblity of 'murder' ... the crucial element being 'intent'
Homicide though, unlike murder, encompasses the possiblity of a death being caused without 'intent'
When the Public Prosecutor concluded that there was a possibility of Negligent Homicide, it was precisely this 'lack of intent' he was allowing for .... that a death may have been caused unintenionally ... an accidental death ... caused by negligence
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: gilet on September 28, 2013, 06:24:04 PM
The Public Prosecutor did not allow for two variants of 'murder' ... he allowed for two variants of 'homicide'
There is a very important distinction between the two
When the Prosecutor concluded that there was a possibility of 'Intended Homicide' he was, indeed, allowing for the possiblity of 'murder' ... the crucial element being 'intent'
Homicide though, unlike murder, encompasses the possiblity of a death being caused without 'intent'
When the Public Prosecutor concluded that there was a possibility of Negligent Homicide, it was precisely this 'lack of intent' he was allowing for .... that a death may have been caused unintenionally ... an accidental death ... caused by negligence
I accept your correction of my use of the word murder instead of homicide. However this is completely irrelevant to the point I was making which was that the AG was also specifically allowing for two variants of abduction. And that under neither code of law (UK or PT) is it incumbent on the accused to prove their innocence.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: icabodcrane on September 28, 2013, 07:21:32 PM
I accept your correction of my use of the word murder instead of homicide. However this is completely irrelevant to the point I was making which was that the AG was also specifically allowing for two variants of abduction. And that under neither code of law (UK or PT) is it incumbent on the accused to prove their innocence.
Neither Anne ( who you wrongly accused of 'posting a lie' ) nor the Public Prosecutor himself, suggested that it was 'incumbent' on the McCanns to 'prove their innocence'
The Public Prosecutor , as Anne pointed out, concluded that the McCanns had been given the 'opportunity' to prove their innocence, and had chosen not to take it
You do concede that there is a difference between 'having to ' and 'choosing not to' ?
The Prosector drew attention to the fact that a police reconstruction had been actively avoided because it had a direct impact on the investigation, and also, therefore, on the conclusion he would ultimately draw
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Mr Gray on September 28, 2013, 07:56:29 PM
Neither Anne ( who you wrongly accused of 'posting a lie' ) nor the Public Prosecutor himself, suggested that it was 'incumbent' on the McCanns to 'prove their innocence'
The Public Prosecutor , as Anne pointed out, concluded that the McCanns had been given the 'opportunity' to prove their innocence, and had chosen not to take it
You do concede that there is a difference between 'having to ' and 'choosing not to' ?
The Prosector drew attention to the fact that a police reconstruction had been actively avoided because it had a direct impact on the investigation, and also, therefore, on the conclusion he would ultimately draw
I think you will find that both you and anne are wrong as the word "prove" is not in the document
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: icabodcrane on October 01, 2013, 03:02:11 AM
We often vere off topic without meaning to, and it's good that you monitor threads to make sure important points are not lost amongst the flotsam and jetsam
I know you get some stick sometimes for starting threads with a post that has been snipped from an already existing one ... but I think it is top-notch modding 8@??)(
Thank you Icabodcrane
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Luz on October 01, 2013, 11:15:30 AM
There is a huge difference when one speaks from a criminal investigation point of view and from a legal point of view. To the investigation, every potential suspects is "guilty" until discarded by the investigation itself; from a legal point of view, even if charged, you are "innocent" until proven guilty in a Court of Law. When potential suspects refuse to partake in any initiative proposed by the criminal investigation, even though they may be innocent, they have chosen to remain suspects. In the present case, and the Archival Report transmitted that (which is very rare), the most obvious suspects chose to remain so.
The lack of existing evidence to charge anyone is not the same as declaring them innocent.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Albertini on October 01, 2013, 01:21:09 PM
So everyone is presumed guilty then? When people choose not to take part in a reconstruction they are exercising their presumption of innocence in practice. They most certainly are not choosing to remain suspects. Your view is a presumption of guilt that puts the onus on them to prove innocence. That is the wrong way round. Like them or not the McCanns are entitled to be presumed innocent. They do not have to prove anything. That is what innocent until proven guilty means and the presumption of innocence remains until such time as guilt has been proven. That is for everyone, not just the McCanns.
No, you like other McCann supporters, are confusing the difference between police investigation and criminal trial.
Under law and in a court they are innocenct until proven guilty.
In an investigation all those who may be suspected to have had the opportunity to be involved in a crime have to rule themselves out of the police investigation to satisfy the police they are not involved. This can take the form of verifiable alibi or physical distance away from the crime scene for example.
When a suspect does not provide evidence of innocence they are not then guilty, far from it, that's where evidence then comes in, but they remain a suspect until such time as they can be ruled out with definitive and verifiable evidence (including of course guilt against another suspect) or until evidence is discovered which shows guilt of those suspects.
As the McCann's have not been able to rule themselves out (and the AG report specifically states the effort they and their friends expended to cancel the reconstruction is directly attributable) in the Portuguese investigation (currently shelved) they will remain suspects (although not arguidos).
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Luz on October 01, 2013, 01:30:14 PM
You seem to have a strange conception of the Law, the State and Human Rights.
Let us look at your sentences exactly as you constructed them, and question what unspoken assumptions lie behind them:
You said: "There is a huge difference when one speaks from a criminal investigation point of view and from a legal point of view. To the investigation, every potential suspects is "guilty" until discarded by the investigation itself; from a legal point of view, even if charged, you are "innocent" until proven guilty in a Court of Law."
There is no justification for this statement. The Police in Portugal and the UK operate under the rule of law. That in its most elevated existence is in the European Declaration on Human Rights which says: "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ... Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law." If the ECHR insists that a charged person must be presumed innocent, then so must an un-charged person. The police are bound to consider any suspect, charged or uncharged, as innocent. The fact that you allow the police to assume guilt is a sign of your bias. And perhaps where this investigation (as many others elsewhere) went wrong. It is the Policeman's Assumption of Guilt- a state of mind that is often rebuffed by Prosecutors.
You then say: "When potential suspects refuse to partake in any initiative proposed by the criminal investigation, even though they may be innocent, they have chosen to remain suspects."
There is no piece of Law that I know of that requires potential suspects to do anything to oppose their supposed condition. In fact the law is always written the other way- that the State must have evidence that allows them to continue to suspect the. Merely refusing to answer questions or do any other bidding of the police does not mean that a person has 'chosen' to remain a suspect. The requirement is for the State to maintain its suggestion that the person is under suspicion. This suggestion needs to be reasonable and sufficient- a fact that was enforced on Portugal days after the McCanns were made arguido.
Are you a police officer. I have dealt with many in my time and they have similar biases to the ones you exhibit above.
Obviously you never worked in criminal investigation. When there is a crime you have to investigate anyone that could have potentially been involved in it. You have to do everything within your power to find out who is innocent and which ones may be guilty. But if you depart from a stand point that some one is innocent because they say so or because the Media find it lucrative, then you get nowhere. No, I'm not a police officer. And yes, I have professional experience in criminal investigations.
Repeating myself, but using your own words: « Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law»; when there is no charge, it is the obligation of the investigative police and other professionals, to consider everybody as potential suspects and to investigate them in order to exonerate or gather evidence to charge them. Everybody is free to avoid giving evidence, but that doesn't help if they are innocent.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Montclair on October 01, 2013, 01:33:08 PM
So everyone is presumed guilty then? When people choose not to take part in a reconstruction they are exercising their presumption of innocence in practice. They most certainly are not choosing to remain suspects. Your view is a presumption of guilt that puts the onus on them to prove innocence. That is the wrong way round. Like them or not the McCanns are entitled to be presumed innocent. They do not have to prove anything. That is what innocent until proven guilty means and the presumption of innocence remains until such time as guilt has been proven. That is for everyone, not just the McCanns.
Be realistic FGS! This is how all investigations are carried out the world over. As long as an official suspect has not been found, those who are involved in the case will always be considered possible suspects until they have been officially cleared. If they considered everyone innocent until proven guilty the police would not be able to do the investigation. You need only watch the many crime series on television to see how this done.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Montclair on October 01, 2013, 01:37:49 PM
Police officers may have a working assumption that someone may have committed an act, but if they start to believe in that assumption and fail to consider alternatives (the policeman's fallacy) then they will make mistakes common to all police and investigatory bodies. Any policeman who loses sight of the true legal status of a suspect- that they are presumed innocent- is in breach of their professional duty.
I guess that you will never understand how criminal investigations are carried out. BTW, policemen consider all alternatives, no matter bizarre they could be.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Luz on October 01, 2013, 01:47:21 PM
Police officers may have a working assumption that someone may have committed an act, but if they start to believe in that assumption and fail to consider alternatives (the policeman's fallacy) then they will make mistakes common to all police and investigatory bodies. Any policeman who loses sight of the true legal status of a suspect- that they are presumed innocent- is in breach of their professional duty.
There are no assumptions prior to the observation/gathering of facts. During the investigation nobody can assume that anyone is innocent or guilty. When the first facts are obtained, obviously there is a need to start formulating potential theories, otherwise it would be impossible to investigate. But I repeat, at the beginning, everyone has to be looked as suspect, only when charged is the person(s) considered innocent until the Court decides that he/she/them are guilty or innocent.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: AnneGuedes on October 01, 2013, 01:49:58 PM
When witnesses refuse to partake in a reconstitution of events requested by the Ministério Publico to help the investigation, even though they say they have nothing to hide, they surely know there's a good chance that their refusal will originate doubts (why aren't they collaborating in an initiative that likely not but hopefully would boost an investigation where clues and facts are so rare ? Are they afraid to be faced with the discrepancies of their statements ? As the MP made clear the purpose was to clear and not to catch anyone red handed, what actually were they scared of ? What had they to lose in the process ? Etc.). Those doubts (unfortunately taking the simplistic form of "guitly or not guilty?") unless some improbable miracle, are bound to stick to public opinion. There's no Law system that can erase doubts in people's minds. This surely irksome situation only could be avoided or reduced if media activity was pondered and limited to official reports, during the investigation of such cases.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Luz on October 01, 2013, 01:54:49 PM
Can you please refer me to the part of Portuguese Law that determines when someone is a suspect and when they are not, and how this supposed status affects their rights and responsibilities?
You keep mixing criminal investigation with legal evaluation of a crime. As you probably understand I will not supply here the regulations by which a criminal investigation is ruled. Come to Portugal and I will be happy to have you enrolled in my classes.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: AnneGuedes on October 01, 2013, 02:04:42 PM
Police officers may have a working assumption that someone may have committed an act, but if they start to believe in that assumption and fail to consider alternatives (the policeman's fallacy) then they will make mistakes common to all police and investigatory bodies. Any policeman who loses sight of the true legal status of a suspect- that they are presumed innocent- is in breach of their professional duty.
You know perfectly that Mr Amaral wasn't dismissed because of "failing to consider alternatives". Far from this, as the continuation of the investigation proved. Besides the PJ is under the control of the MP and under the control of the instruction judge concerning human rights. It is the MP's job, not the PJ's, to send to court presumed innocents who could be guilty.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: John on October 01, 2013, 02:05:41 PM
Actually, I find it quite astonishing that for whatever reason, some six years after the event, there has never been an official reconstruction of the events.
I would have thought the tapas 9 would have wanted to assist the inquiry rather than take the cowards way out and refuse to do so.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Luz on October 01, 2013, 02:20:31 PM
Actually, I find it quite astonishing that for whatever reason, some six years after the event, there has never been an official reconstruction of the events.
I would have thought the tapas 9 would have wanted to assist the inquiry rather than take the cowards way out and refuse to do so.
There were a few reconstructions, the latest by Pedro Rebelo and his team, but no reconstitutions with the original intervenients.
In my opinion the refusal by the Tapas 7 was orchestrated in the get-together in the Rothley Hotel, just prior fro the end of the timeline given by the portuguese authorities, because the McCann couldn't directly refuse to do it, so they used the friends to refuse in their place. The e-mails are laughable - from afar I remember the exigence of 5 star Hotels for them and their children, for instance.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Montclair on October 01, 2013, 04:03:59 PM
At least criticise what I actually said, rather than what you thought I said.
I did not say that Amaral was dismissed because of "failing to consider alternatives". What I said was that from his book and his other statements it is obvious that he fell into the Policeman's fallacy- thinking he had the culprits bang to rights and therefore he stopped looking for other explanations. He depended on two strands of fornesics which he misunderstood (dogs and DNA) and used this to bolster his own prejudiced conclusions. In the end when all the evidence was considered in details, there was found to be insufficient to prove the ideas he was working on.
When are you ever going to understand that the investigation was led by the Ministério Público and the judges and that Gonçalo Amaral did not make any of the decisions as to what was to be done. He did not make the conclusions of the investigation and which are presented in his book. These conclusions were made by the team, that is the inspectors and the judges of the Ministério Público.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: John on October 01, 2013, 04:04:56 PM
At least criticise what I actually said, rather than what you thought I said.
I did not say that Amaral was dismissed because of "failing to consider alternatives". What I said was that from his book and his other statements it is obvious that he fell into the Policeman's fallacy- thinking he had the culprits bang to rights and therefore he stopped looking for other explanations. He depended on two strands of fornesics which he misunderstood (dogs and DNA) and used this to bolster his own prejudiced conclusions. In the end when all the evidence was considered in details, there was found to be insufficient to prove the ideas he was working on.
Been there and worn the t-shirt as they say. I have much sympathy with what you write SS. My own experience of the police is that they can indeed have tunnel vision on occasion. Chris Jeffries and Barry George being but two individuals who have suffered because of this.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: DCI on October 01, 2013, 04:24:29 PM
At least criticise what I actually said, rather than what you thought I said.
I did not say that Amaral was dismissed because of "failing to consider alternatives". What I said was that from his book and his other statements it is obvious that he fell into the Policeman's fallacy- thinking he had the culprits bang to rights and therefore he stopped looking for other explanations. He depended on two strands of fornesics which he misunderstood (dogs and DNA) and used this to bolster his own prejudiced conclusions. In the end when all the evidence was considered in details, there was found to be insufficient to prove the ideas he was working on.
I wonder if thats why the Portuguese public prosecutor, refused the PJ permission to interrogate the McCann's again, in the UK.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Victoria on October 01, 2013, 04:26:37 PM
I think it's clear from reading his book that Amaral simply didn't have the dynamic mind and mental flexibility to handle an investigation as complex as the one he found himself presented with. Nobody, not even Kate and Gerry, would try to argue that the police shouldn't explore theories. Amaral and his colleagues were right to question the statements made by the McCanns' holiday companions. They were right to scrutinise contradictions and of course, they were right to consider the possibility that the parents or friends were involved in their daughter's disappearance. However, within the first twenty-four hours, certainly within the first forty-eight, they should have eliminated the parents from their inquiries. They failed to do so.
Amaral's problem was that he became fixated, to the detriment of the investigation. He misunderstood the forensic evidence, hardly surprising given that the local officers were trying to gather it without even wearing gloves! More worryingly, he grew increasingly paranoid about the motivations of his superiors and his British counterparts, seeing plots and hidden agendas everywhere. In short, he was not fit to carry out the role entrusted to him by the good people of Portugal.
The above was clear to anyone who had so much as a passing interest in the case. For Kate and Gerry - at the centre of it - it would have been painfully clear that Amaral had all but abandoned any sense of objectivity, and was interested only in his own pet theories. Their decision not to indulge his idiocy any longer was perfectly understandable.
Reconstruction? The only thing that needed reconstructing was the investigative process!
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Luz on October 01, 2013, 04:38:26 PM
I wonder if thats why the Portuguese public prosecutor, refused the PJ permission to interrogate the McCann's again, in the UK.
Ignorance is not punishable....
The PJ were not forbidden by the AG, they couldn't under the laws of an independent country, as the UK, to conduct interviews there, as the SY is forbidden to make such interviews in Portugal. That's why there is that ridiculous figure: "rogatory" interviews.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: DCI on October 01, 2013, 04:46:45 PM
The PJ were not forbidden by the AG, they couldn't under the laws of an independent country, as the UK, to conduct interviews there, as the SY is forbidden to make such interviews in Portugal. That's why there is that ridiculous figure: "rogatory" interviews.
The Madeleine McCann investigation has hit an impasse as police are being blocked from asking the McCanns 100 new questions.
Detectives said a 'root and branch' review of the six-month inquiry had 'confirmed suspicions' but failed to uncover any new clues which could solve the disappearance.
They have drawn up a list of questions they want to put to Kate and Gerry McCann but they will not be allowed to do so unless they convince a public prosecutor that they have a case against them.
They also want to interrogate the other members of the so-called Tapas Nine, and to quiz relatives about the couple and their relationship with their children.
But the Portuguese public prosecutor has said he will not authorise any new interrogations without seeing stronger evidence in the case.
Police have privately admitted that it would take 'a miracle' for them to build a better case against the couple, although they still hope there could be a forensics breakthrough in the investigation.
The Madeleine McCann investigation has hit an impasse as police are being blocked from asking the McCanns 100 new questions.
Detectives said a 'root and branch' review of the six-month inquiry had 'confirmed suspicions' but failed to uncover any new clues which could solve the disappearance.
They have drawn up a list of questions they want to put to Kate and Gerry McCann but they will not be allowed to do so unless they convince a public prosecutor that they have a case against them.
They also want to interrogate the other members of the so-called Tapas Nine, and to quiz relatives about the couple and their relationship with their children.
But the Portuguese public prosecutor has said he will not authorise any new interrogations without seeing stronger evidence in the case.
Police have privately admitted that it would take 'a miracle' for them to build a better case against the couple, although they still hope there could be a forensics breakthrough in the investigation.
If you read my posts above, you will see its from 2007, re Rogatory statements. It was a reply to Luz post
Your posts, if you allow me, reveal a total ignorance not only of the law but also of the "demarches" that were taken under the Public Prosecutors supervision. By now you should know that newspapers are not a liable source. They state whatever sells the most.
Edited
And by the way,rogatories are not ridiculous per se, I expressed myself wrongly; the interviews conducted under the rogatories by Leicestershire police were ridiculous, to say the least. You just have to read them.
After those what was the point of requesting more?!
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Carana on October 01, 2013, 05:17:45 PM
It is not just anecdotal. Policing has come a long way in the last thirty years in its careful use of scientific truths. Gone are the days when interviews were simple simple cops talking to simple suspects. Now the idea is to use cognitive interviewing and careful collation of facts and use this against a background of truths about human behaviour and human memory. What we so often see on forums is people still thinking in old police ways- methods that have been long disproven.
I think that we should hold people on fora to the same standards- "I saw it on TV" or "Everybody knows that", or "Some people are so gifted they can see things that ordinary mortals don't" should be consigned to the bins of discussion as meaningless. What does matter is what we know and how we know it, not what we believe and why we believe it.
Most fall-outs between the two camps are caused by simple blindness on both sides to what is really the case.
I'd agree... but in Portimão?
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: DCI on October 01, 2013, 05:19:15 PM
Your posts, if you allow me, reveal a total ignorance not only of the law but also of the "demarches" that were taken under the Public Prosecutors supervision. By now you should know that newspapers are not a liable source. They state whatever sells the most.
So, if thats the case, why were the McCann's not interrogated??
By the way, Ignorance is bliss @)(++(*
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Montclair on October 01, 2013, 05:28:14 PM
I think it's clear from reading his book that Amaral simply didn't have the dynamic mind and mental flexibility to handle an investigation as complex as the one he found himself presented with. Nobody, not even Kate and Gerry, would try to argue that the police shouldn't explore theories. Amaral and his colleagues were right to question the statements made by the McCanns' holiday companions. They were right to scrutinise contradictions and of course, they were right to consider the possibility that the parents or friends were involved in their daughter's disappearance. However, within the first twenty-four hours, certainly within the first forty-eight, they should have eliminated the parents from their inquiries. They failed to do so.
Amaral's problem was that he became fixated, to the detriment of the investigation. He misunderstood the forensic evidence, hardly surprising given that the local officers were trying to gather it without even wearing gloves! More worryingly, he grew increasingly paranoid about the motivations of his superiors and his British counterparts, seeing plots and hidden agendas everywhere. In short, he was not fit to carry out the role entrusted to him by the good people of Portugal.
The above was clear to anyone who had so much as a passing interest in the case. For Kate and Gerry - at the centre of it - it would have been painfully clear that Amaral had all but abandoned any sense of objectivity, and was interested only in his own pet theories. Their decision not to indulge his idiocy any longer was perfectly understandable.
Reconstruction? The only thing that needed reconstructing was the investigative process!
I will say this once again, hoping that this information might just sink into some people's heads. Gonçalo Amaral did not lead the investigation. The Polícia Judiciária are part of the judicial system and work under the authority of the judges in the Ministério Público. All decisions are made by the judges not the inspectors. Many of you still insist on the idea that investigations in Portugal are run like they are in the UK.
The investigation in the beginning was influenced by pressure from the British authorities. Although the PJ and the Ministério Público had their suspicions about the parents, they were pressured into looking exclusively at the abduction theory for the first 3 months and obviously got nowhere, even with the presence of the British police to help them. So, please don't come up with the story that the Portuguese did not look at other alternatives. Also, I would like to remind you that the British were the first to come up with the possibility that Madeleine was dead. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with Lee Rainbow and Mark Harrison.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Redblossom on October 01, 2013, 05:28:55 PM
I think it's clear from reading his book that Amaral simply didn't have the dynamic mind and mental flexibility to handle an investigation as complex as the one he found himself presented with. Nobody, not even Kate and Gerry, would try to argue that the police shouldn't explore theories. Amaral and his colleagues were right to question the statements made by the McCanns' holiday companions. They were right to scrutinise contradictions and of course, they were right to consider the possibility that the parents or friends were involved in their daughter's disappearance. However, within the first twenty-four hours, certainly within the first forty-eight, they should have eliminated the parents from their inquiries. They failed to do so.
Amaral's problem was that he became fixated, to the detriment of the investigation. He misunderstood the forensic evidence, hardly surprising given that the local officers were trying to gather it without even wearing gloves! More worryingly, he grew increasingly paranoid about the motivations of his superiors and his British counterparts, seeing plots and hidden agendas everywhere. In short, he was not fit to carry out the role entrusted to him by the good people of Portugal.
The above was clear to anyone who had so much as a passing interest in the case. For Kate and Gerry - at the centre of it - it would have been painfully clear that Amaral had all but abandoned any sense of objectivity, and was interested only in his own pet theories. Their decision not to indulge his idiocy any longer was perfectly understandable.
Reconstruction? The only thing that needed reconstructing was the investigative process!
How do you then explain the McCanns' fear that such a book could hamper the search?
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Luz on October 01, 2013, 05:45:27 PM
How do you then explain the McCanns' fear that such a book could hamper the search?
One woman videoed taking fingerprints without gloves doesn't hamper the forensics results. What may have compromised the crime scene was the hysterical (or voluntary?!) damage caused by the McCann themselves, their friends and all the people they invited into the apartment, and the fact that they took almost an hour to call the authorities.
The fear the McCann had about the book was just an extension of the fear they had from the first minute. That's why they delayed contacting the authorities and instead chose to put up a Media campaign before the police had a chance to get there.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Victoria on October 01, 2013, 05:46:30 PM
I read them a long time ago. I do not need to tread them again before you support your assertion that they are ridiculous.
If you are going to make a statement, you need to back it up. Why, in your humble opinion, are they ridiculous; if so, are they ridiculous to everyone, or is it just your opinion.
If you need me to appoint why they are ridiculous, either you didn't read them or you didn't understand what was the point for those interviews - I can guaranty you that it was not to have the witnesses read or being told what their (or their partners) previous testimonies were in order to attempt to make ends meet.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: AnneGuedes on October 01, 2013, 05:52:00 PM
The Madeleine McCann investigation has hit an impasse as police are being blocked from asking the McCanns 100 new questions.
Detectives said a 'root and branch' review of the six-month inquiry had 'confirmed suspicions' but failed to uncover any new clues which could solve the disappearance.
They have drawn up a list of questions they want to put to Kate and Gerry McCann but they will not be allowed to do so unless they convince a public prosecutor that they have a case against them.
They also want to interrogate the other members of the so-called Tapas Nine, and to quiz relatives about the couple and their relationship with their children.
But the Portuguese public prosecutor has said he will not authorise any new interrogations without seeing stronger evidence in the case.
Police have privately admitted that it would take 'a miracle' for them to build a better case against the couple, although they still hope there could be a forensics breakthrough in the investigation.
The Daily Mail ! The MP said that there was no reason for Mrs McCann to change her attitude (lawyer orientated) and answer the 48 since no new element of proof had be uncovered. If there had been, she should have come to Portugal, as an arguido. But of course she could spontaneously, or because the lawyer all of a sudden would have thought it was better, have asked to be interviewed in Portimão.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Montclair on October 01, 2013, 05:53:24 PM
Where is your evidence for the delay in calling the police. What time elapsed? How do we know?
I would point out that in such cases virtually no crime scene is unsulllied. It is also suggested that the local police showed no respect for it as a crime scene until the PJ showed.
Of course, it was not considered a crime scene because, at the time, it was a case of a missing child who could have wandered off and been found.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: AnneGuedes on October 01, 2013, 05:57:40 PM
The PJ showed when the GNR called them and the GNR showed when the receptionist called them, about 40 minutes after the alert and though all these people had cell phones and could call the 999 that would have redirected them to the European Emergency Number 112.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: AnneGuedes on October 01, 2013, 05:59:24 PM
Where is your evidence for the delay in calling the police. What time elapsed? How do we know?
I would point out that in such cases virtually no crime scene is unsulllied. It is also suggested that the local police showed no respect for it as a crime scene until the PJ showed.
Lets keep to the facts guys which we have already established by much scrutiny of the evidence.
The police were summoned a short time after Madeleine was found to have disappeared. It wasn't the McCanns fault that the resort receptionist delayed in telephoning them or that the only patrol available was miles away at the time dealing with an alleged robbery.
Madeleine was found to be missing some minutes after 10pm, the Portuguese police (GNR) arrived at 11pm and it was after midnight when the first of the detectives or PJ arrived.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Montclair on October 01, 2013, 06:04:25 PM
I don't speak for the McCanns. If you refer to the opening post, you will see that this thread is about the reconstruction.
I wasn't suggesting this. I just answered to your "I think it's clear from reading his book that Amaral simply didn't have the dynamic mind and mental flexibility to handle an investigation as complex as the one he found himself presented with." If it's clear for you, it's clear for anybody and this trial is absurd unless it gives money to the McCanns.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: AnneGuedes on October 01, 2013, 06:06:07 PM
HOLMES has already been used to reconstruct times. Nothing new will be added after six years that would increase reliability.
A digital reconstruction using the statements from the persons involved made here in Portugal showed that it was impossible for someone to have abducted Madeleine. However, nothing can replace using the persons involved in the case when doing a reconstruction.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Victoria on October 01, 2013, 06:09:11 PM
I wasn't suggesting this. I just answered to your "I think it's clear from reading his book that Amaral simply didn't have the dynamic mind and mental flexibility to handle an investigation as complex as the one he found himself presented with." If it's clear for you, it's clear for anybody and this trial is absurd unless it gives money to the McCanns.
The fact that a false statement is clearly untrue shouldn't prevent it from being actionable. And fortunately doesn't.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Montclair on October 01, 2013, 06:10:46 PM
When are you going to acknowledge the fact that you are wrong when you state that Gonçalo Amaral handled the investigation?
My dear fellow, whatever do you mean? According to his own book, Amaral played a key part in the original investigation. At least, until he was removed by his dissatisfied superiors.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: AnneGuedes on October 01, 2013, 06:14:17 PM
HOLMES is surely a very useful device. But I wonder what HOLMES could make out of the fact that the police, and not the right one, was called 40 minutes after the alert. As it was observed by Icabodcrane, Mr McCann only in September, and because he was asked why he didn't do physical research, told he had gone to the secondary reception (on top of which was Madeleine's creche) without taking advantage of being there to make sure the police had been called (and then it hadn't yet been). How can HOLMES process this ?
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: AnneGuedes on October 01, 2013, 06:16:59 PM
My dear fellow, whatever do you mean? According to his own book, Amaral played a key part in the original investigation. At least, until he was removed by his dissatisfied superiors.
Quite. This is own description of his job in his book
Quote ''I have been living for a year in this town, where I lead the Department of Criminal Investigation of the police judiciaire.'' Unquote
He was the Lead Investigator in the McCann case - and to claim otherwise is plainly wrong. Could a police officer who was NOT in charge have ordered his men to follow the UK police when they arrived and report their every move back to him? I doubt it.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Luz on October 01, 2013, 06:50:39 PM
Ok. So from all that has been said we must conclude that nor the parents or the friends, the last persons that could account for the whereabouts of Madeleine, had nothing important to give to the investigation. Their only obligation was to provide some simple explanations, no matter if they were incomplete or not, because it was up to the investigators to be psychics to determine what had really occurred that evening prior and after the child went missing.
Stupid PJs, why weren't they psychics? Why didn't they visualize in their minds what had happened? Why did they keep bothering the poor Tapas9?! Stupid morons, it was the GNR and the PJ that made Madeleine disappear, why question the parents?
Sometimes I wonder what people think that could be done when a person disappears. Should one leave it at that and just close the case so nobody is bothered to help?
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Luz on October 01, 2013, 06:57:49 PM
Do you understand what a poor debating technique that is. Unworthy of any other response than this brickbat.
If you and some other persons question the request to do a reconstitution because there were discrepancies in the statements, what can one assume from your position? It's obvious that you defend that nobody should be questioned, unless they are thwarty looking foreigners, probably!
P.S. Humbly I can say I had 20 out of 20 in a "rhetorica" exercise in high school.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Luz on October 01, 2013, 07:07:11 PM
But I prefer dialectics,...
Waiting calmly for any argument worth considering.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 01, 2013, 07:13:56 PM
Quite. This is own description of his job in his book
Quote ''I have been living for a year in this town, where I lead the Department of Criminal Investigation of the police judiciaire.'' Unquote
He was the Lead Investigator in the McCann case - and to claim otherwise is plainly wrong. Could a police officer who was NOT in charge have ordered his men to follow the UK police when they arrived and report their every move back to him? I doubt it.
What you are saying is incorrect! He was the head of his department but he was not the lead investigator and I am not wrong when I say this. As I have said so many times the judges in the Ministério Público lead the investigations not the police. He was the coordinator and it was his job to receive the reports from the other police officers after they carried out their tasks and pass them to the judges. He had no authority in how the investigation was to be run. As an example, after the judges made their decision, his job was to decide which officers were to go to the pet crematorium, which car to take and how much money to take, etc. He did take an on hands approach in many cases but he did not lead any of them, he was not allowed by law. If he did take any initiatives on his own, they would never be validated and any PJ officer knows this.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Rachel Granada on October 01, 2013, 08:52:45 PM
What you are saying is incorrect! He was the head of his department but he was not the lead investigator and I am not wrong when I say this. As I have said so many times the judges in the Ministério Público lead the investigations not the police. He was the coordinator and it was his job to receive the reports from the other police officers after they carried out their tasks and pass them to the judges. He had no authority in how the investigation was to be run. As an example, after the judges made their decision, his job was to decide which officers were to go to the pet crematorium, which car to take and how much money to take, etc. He did take an on hands approach in many cases but he did not lead any of them, he was not allowed by law. If he did take any initiatives on his own, they would never be validated and any PJ officer knows this.
A "hands on" approach where he never even met or spoke to the parents of the missing child....
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Carana on October 01, 2013, 08:57:13 PM
What you are saying is incorrect! He was the head of his department but he was not the lead investigator and I am not wrong when I say this. As I have said so many times the judges in the Ministério Público lead the investigations not the police. He was the coordinator and it was his job to receive the reports from the other police officers after they carried out their tasks and pass them to the judges. He had no authority in how the investigation was to be run. As an example, after the judges made their decision, his job was to decide which officers were to go to the pet crematorium, which car to take and how much money to take, etc. He did take an on hands approach in many cases but he did not lead any of them, he was not allowed by law. If he did take any initiatives on his own, they would never be validated and any PJ officer knows this.
So what are you saying? That he was just a glorified office boy?
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: John on October 01, 2013, 09:09:55 PM
Dr Amaral was responsible for the detectives under his control, he had to sign off on their work. His involvement as Coordinator on the Joana Cipriano murder case gained him a criminal record since he was the one who approved the detectives false reports. The detectives were answerable to him and he in turn to the Superior Coordinator and thence to the judges.
Dr Amaral had the equivalent rank of a Det Chief Superintendent so claiming he was some sort of glorified officeboy just doesn't cut it.
He was a detective first and foremost, then a Senior Detective and finally a Coordinator of Detectives. Had it not been for the furore over the Madeleine case he was due to be promoted to Superior Coordinator.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Rachel Granada on October 01, 2013, 09:17:54 PM
Dr Amaral was responsible for the detectives under his control, he had to sign off on their work. His involvement as Coordinator on the Joana Cipriano murder case gained him a criminal record since he was the one who approved the detectives false reports. The detectives were answerable to him and he in turn to the Superior Coordinator and thence to the judges.
Dr Amaral had the equivalent rank of a Det Chief Superintendent so claiming he was some sort of glorified officeboy just doesn't cut it.
He was a detective first and foremost, then a Senior Detective and finally a Coordinator of Detectives. Had it not been for the furore over the Madeleine case he was due to be promoted to Superior Coordinator.
Yet he never even saw fit to meet the parents of a missing child, not even to reassure them, to try and get to know them.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Montclair on October 01, 2013, 09:34:37 PM
What people here still fail to see is that he was not the lead investigator and he was not responsible for the decisions made in the case.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: LagosBen on October 01, 2013, 09:36:00 PM
What people here still fail to see is that he was not the lead investigator and he was not responsible for the decisions made in the case.
You are wrong there Montclair. He was the coordinator and most of the time he was on the field.The decisions, in fact, were made by the team: portuguese and british, but he supervised all.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Carana on October 01, 2013, 09:44:25 PM
Dr Amaral was responsible for the detectives under his control, he had to sign off on their work. His involvement as Coordinator on the Joana Cipriano murder case gained him a criminal record since he was the one who approved the detectives false reports. The detectives were answerable to him and he in turn to the Superior Coordinator and thence to the judges.
Dr Amaral had the equivalent rank of a Det Chief Superintendent so claiming he was some sort of glorified officeboy just doesn't cut it.
He was a detective first and foremost, then a Senior Detective and finally a Coordinator of Detectives. Had it not been for the furore over the Madeleine case he was due to be promoted to Superior Coordinator.
But there were no false reports since there was no aggression inside the PJ premises.How can you responsiblilise anyone for the absence of reports that could not be produced since the events didn't occur?
Yes If it wasn't for poor madeleine's demise he would probably be a national director now.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Carana on October 01, 2013, 09:48:21 PM
But there were no false reports since there was no aggression inside the PJ premises.How can you responsiblilise anyone for the absence of reports that could not be produced since the events didn't occur?
There's a thread on this somewhere on here...
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Luz on October 01, 2013, 09:51:00 PM
You are wrong there Montclair. He was the coordinator and most of the time he was on the field.The decisions, in fact, were made by the team: portuguese and british, but he supervised all.
I am aware of the fact that he was on the field in this case and for most of them. What I am saying is that the final decisions are made by the judges of the Ministério Público.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Redblossom on October 01, 2013, 09:59:23 PM
getting back to the OP, and hopefully without hearing any banshee screams, for posting a hideho video, this is very revealing video extract from sky news, the full original video of whch has been pulled from youtube so I have only this source, you dont have to watch past the sky nterview
Notice how evident it is by the journalists questions that their not seeing to being willing to go back did not make them look good, so yes, there was damage to their image
Some more examples of beng averse
From 4 20 And
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: ferryman on October 01, 2013, 10:36:15 PM
In the McCann investigation any idea that a reconstruction (or reconstitution, if you prefer) would have resolved anything at all is a red-herring, a fallacy and a myth; while all indicators that led to them being suspected were comprehensively discredited.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: icabodcrane on October 01, 2013, 10:48:04 PM
I repeat the presumption of innocence and being innocent until proven innocent means that McCanns or anyone else for that matter are not obliged to rule themselves out. The police are obliged to do their job with or without co-operation from suspects or anyone else for that matter.
Well, yes ... but the fact that it is not necesssary to prove innocence does not usually lead to innocent people making no attempt to do so
Suppose, for instance, there had been a hit and run crime local to you, and witnesses confirmed that the car involved was the same model and colour as yours. The police come to see you to question your whereabouts at the time the crime occured
You would tell them wouldn't you ?
You wouldn't 'have' to of course ... you could tell the police that you are not obliged to prove your innocence and that it is up to them to eliminate you from the enquiry without any cooperation or assistance from you
But you wouldn't do that ( no innocent person would ) because whether or not we are 'obliged' to prove our innocence, it is human nature to wish to do so
Innocent people are not expected to be evasive and uncooperative ... that is what is expected of guilty people
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Carana on October 01, 2013, 10:48:24 PM
I am aware of the fact that he was on the field in this case and for most of them. What I am saying is that the final decisions are made by the judges of the Ministério Público.
What do you mean by final decisions? The MP supervises an investigation, but can delegate a number of aspects to the police to deal with, can't it?
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Rachel Granada on October 01, 2013, 10:56:48 PM
If only that were true. Police develop case hypotheses early and sometimes they are so absurd that if anyone dared suggest it as a script for the Bill it would be rejected as incapable of belief. Take the Cardiff Five for example, I have written two books on it and I was proved right and the police wrong. They decided 5 innocent men were guilty and gathered evidence to back it up ignoring all evidence proving their innocence. Check out the Lynette White/ Cardiff 3 or 5 case. It beggars belief that such absurd beliefs got near a court. Then look at the Schiedammer Park Murder in the Netherlands. Police decided an 11 year old boy was the rapist and murderer of a 10 year old girl. Eventually the DNA proved him innocent, so they decided the star witness, the boy's saviour was guilty. Wrong again and an absurd hypothesis. There are plenty more like this too.
Excellent post. Dhingra.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Luz on October 01, 2013, 11:08:00 PM
I am aware of the fact that he was on the field in this case and for most of them. What I am saying is that the final decisions are made by the judges of the Ministério Público.
INDEEDY, that was always something that was not understood either by the press or the public. Not a single measure taken during the investigation could be made without the consent of the <Public Ministry-
Thanks for reminding this Montclair shiufffff(kiss on the forehead)
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: ferryman on October 01, 2013, 11:08:32 PM
And thirded.
Good post indeed.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Luz on October 01, 2013, 11:13:06 PM
getting back to the OP, and hopefully without hearing any banshee screams, for posting a hideho video, this is very revealing video extract from sky news, the full original video of whch has been pulled from youtube so I have only this source, you dont have to watch past the sky nterview
Notice how evident it is by the journalists questions that their not seeing to being willing to go back did not make them look good, so yes, there was damage to their image
Some more examples of beng averse
From 4 20 And
Bansheeeeeeeeeeeeee @)(++(*
Do you believe that the doubters have not seen this? I think they are like my cat when the bird lands on him, he fakes that he is asleep so he doesn't have to fight the damn bird as he was supposed to.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Angelo222 on October 01, 2013, 11:30:56 PM
Dermot Murnaghan makes a very good point in that first video about the footage from the reconstruction going around the world yet the McCanns throw up every excuse under the sun to avoid doing one. The suggestion that it would somehow end up a media frenzy can easily be avoided by closing off the zone for a day. It has been done in other cases so no reason why it cant be done in Praia da Luz. In any event isn't it publicity that Madeleine needs?
Kate says they would go back if there was a good reason for doing so...could I suggest that reason is their missing daughter!!
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Luz on October 01, 2013, 11:37:44 PM
If only that were true. Police develop case hypotheses early and sometimes they are so absurd that if anyone dared suggest it as a script for the Bill it would be rejected as incapable of belief. Take the Cardiff Five for example, I have written two books on it and I was proved right and the police wrong. They decided 5 innocent men were guilty and gathered evidence to back it up ignoring all evidence proving their innocence. Check out the Lynette White/ Cardiff 3 or 5 case. It beggars belief that such absurd beliefs got near a court. Then look at the Schiedammer Park Murder in the Netherlands. Police decided an 11 year old boy was the rapist and murderer of a 10 year old girl. Eventually the DNA proved him innocent, so they decided the star witness, the boy's saviour was guilty. Wrong again and an absurd hypothesis. There are plenty more like this too.
Ignoring how an investigation is carried is on is how it should be. Fortunately.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: icabodcrane on October 01, 2013, 11:38:29 PM
Dermot Murnaghan makes a very good point in that last video about the footage from the reconstruction going around the world yet the McCanns throw up every excuse under the sun to avoid doing one. The suggestion that it would somehow end up a media frenzy can easily be avoided by closing off the zone for a day. It has been done in other cases so no reason why it cant be done in Praia da Luz. In any event isn't it publicity that Madeleine needs?
Yes, I noticed that too Angelo ... he was suggesting that it could be a positive thing for the McCanns to do, that would provide the opportunity for a refreshed and hugely wide reaching publicity campaign ( almost exactly corresponding with the first anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance )
I was noticable that they did not respond to that point
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: ferryman on October 01, 2013, 11:40:11 PM
Dermot Murnaghan makes a very good point in that first video about the footage from the reconstruction going around the world yet the McCanns throw up every excuse under the sun to avoid doing one. The suggestion that it would somehow end up a media frenzy can easily be avoided by closing off the zone for a day. It has been done in other cases so no reason why it cant be done in Praia da Luz. In any event isn't it publicity that Madeleine needs?
Reconstructions need to be put in context.
A reconstruction would never have recreated accurately actual events leading to the shooting of Jean-Paul de Menezes.
And if there had been a tragic end to the harrowing ordeal Peter Voisey subjected his victim to, and they had relied, alone, on a reconstruction to try to fathom the truth, one of that little girl's family probably would have gone to prison for the crimes of Voisey.
A bid to recreate what went before (particularly to a standard of accuracy and precision required to serve standards of criminal justice) is just a non-starter.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: ferryman on October 01, 2013, 11:43:17 PM
Yes, I noticed that too Angelo ... he was suggesting that it could be a positive thing for the McCanns to do, that would provide the opportunity for a refreshed and hugely wide reaching publicity campaign ( almost exactly corresponding with the first anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance )
I was noticable that they did not respond to that point
The McCanns didn't throw up any excuses at all.
They were obliged to return.
They weren't enthusiastic and who can blame then?
No purpose in uncovering the truth of what happened to Madeleine would have been served.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: icabodcrane on October 02, 2013, 12:16:10 AM
And that is exactly how miscarriages of justice occur. Stephen Miller was quite happy to talk to the police to eliminate himself from police inquiries more than once. And don't forget we know for a fact that he is innocent because Jeffrey Gafoor was later convicted of the murder by pleading guilty. Millerr did not g home for 4 years and 25 years after the murder of Lynette White remains damaged by that experience. He more than likely won't recover and that happened with police ignoring clear evidence of his innocence.
If there is a genuine intention to establish the truth then fine, but that is not always the case, so to answer your point, no I would not co-operate in the manner you suggest. I would say, here is my solicitor's contact details, arrange an appointment and we'll talk and I would do that to make sure that there are no distortions or misunderstandings later. If they want the truth rather than to prosecute me regardless of the facts they'd be happy with that. Having worked on many major miscarriages of justice my trust has to be earned, not impossible, but necessary.
I don't know anything about the case you have highlighted, although I appreciate that having made a study of miscarriage of justice , you may be more aware than most about how it comes about
In this case though, in what way do you envisage that the proposed reconstruction might have led to a miscarriage of justice ?
Why do you think the McCanns were right to be cynical of the motives of the police ? what do think they feared might happen during a reconstruction ... indeed what could have happened that might have led to the McCanns being stitched up ?
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Redblossom on October 02, 2013, 12:21:39 AM
Dermot Murnaghan makes a very good point in that first video about the footage from the reconstruction going around the world yet the McCanns throw up every excuse under the sun to avoid doing one. The suggestion that it would somehow end up a media frenzy can easily be avoided by closing off the zone for a day. It has been done in other cases so no reason why it cant be done in Praia da Luz. In any event isn't it publicity that Madeleine needs?
Kate says they would go back if there was a good reason for doing so...could I suggest that reason is their missing daughter!!
The reconstruction was not going to be televised, it was a private police procedure to iron out inconsistencies, to take them back through all their tracks and make sure what they said happened when and where was correct.....and to make sure the police had a better handle over that nights events...and maybe new information and clues coming out....couldnt help noticing Gerry in one breath in the second video sayng hes not averse to it but in the others havng such anger and contempt and indignation in his face and words and asking what use it would be and generally acting like he had any say or control over what the police want to do! Or should do. Even sayng it was not just up to them to say yes or no but other people, well it wasnt up to him to say no ever as he was an arguido!! he had no choice. The brass neck! Also At the time the interview was conducted which was after all the correspondence with the PJ Gerry Mccann will have known it was not a reconstruction to be televised so why did he prance around Dermots questions? @)(++(*
the very fact that they and all those others OBJECTED to the police reconstruction after all the assurances given and that UK authorities and lawyers and whatnots would be there too speaks volumes...no stone unturned my foot!!
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: faithlilly on October 02, 2013, 01:09:00 AM
What is expected is that people follow the advice of their lawyers. The lawyers (IMHO) saw a fit-up coming as Amaral struggled with inadequate evidence (they knew that he was making them arguido only days before the law changed to make that not an option). In that situation, why give ammunition to a police operation set on proving that you did something of which you were innocent. Most of the 48 questions were fishing expeditions to build a case against the McCanns. The PJ have obviously never taken to cognitive interviewing- the psychologically and scientifically validated method now widely used in the UK, and rely instaead on the US bait and switch approach.
But Amaral had been removed from the case long before the reconstruction was proposed and would have nothing to do with it
Are you saying that the McCanns, or their lawyers, thought that the man who replaced him, Paulo Rebelo, was also 'out to get them' ?
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: icabodcrane on October 02, 2013, 07:13:10 AM
The whole tone of both the original investigation and the continued one was of an American style police operation- choose a target and get a confession. This technique has been shown to lead to major miscarriages of justice (this is after all a Justice Board.) For instance, in the US it is quite legal to mislead a suspect (about for instance DNA and Dogs) and then elicit a confession based on fear of death or long term imprisonment; US courts do not see that as illegal but English courts will not allow that under PACE or even previously under Judges Rules where such lying was cause to have the evidence thrown out.
Having had the chance to see the entire documentation of the case, it is obvious the the PJ are using investigative methods that are out of the Ark and are seen as ineffective compared with modern policing. They are hoist by their own petard as their techniques have been revealed by the publication of the investigation in a form that would happen nowhere else. Anyone familiar with modern criminology would see that their invetigative methods are way behind the times.
Thankyou, I just wanted to clarify that it wasn't just Amaral ( as some kind of lone rougue cop ) who the McCanns thought was trying to 'stitch them up' ... but the Portuguese police in general, including the new man in charge of the case, Paulo Rebelo
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: icabodcrane on October 02, 2013, 07:40:09 AM
That is apparent on any reading of the files- the techniques used just creak. Nowhere is there any sign of a shadow investigation which would be normal practice in the UK after a failure such as theirs in the original investigation. The interviews appear crude and unplanned, and follow 'police suspicions' rather than verifiable facts. The files will be highly valued by criminologists who rarely get such a clear chance to assess an operation such as this from original sources- usually having to rely on bowdlerised reports.
Who knows, if they had run a reasonable investigation from the start (or even part way through) then the perpetrators (McCanns or abductors) maight have been caught.
This is not Xenophobia- I am equally hard on UK and particularly US police (who also are resistant to modern methods).
oh I agree that the Portuguse investigation was deeply flawed, as many police investigations are ( and not only in Portugal ) ... how often have we heard "lessons will be learned" following shambolic investigations ?
What I am not convinced of, though, is the suggestion that the Portuguese police ( even after Amaral was removed ) were intending to 'fit the McCanns up' ... right there under the eyes of the watching world, and despite the unprecidented political interest and involvement
To me, it is an absurd suggestion that has no basis in fact or evidence
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 02, 2013, 08:00:50 AM
They were not trying consciously to fit up the McCanns. They truly believed that they were guilty, they truly believed the DNA and Dogs, they felt the Justice system was conspiring against them by changing the Arguido terms, they thought they had solved the case. They acted honestly but in the end, stupidly.
There was never enough evidence to secure a conviction- especially when the DNA and dogs were given their true value.
It shows all the hallmarks of the Policeman's Error-
Belief in Certainty of their actions Belief they had special skills Distrust of Prosecutors and Legal systems Distrust of the Press and Public, Home and Abroad Failure to use rational and scientific critiquing of the operation Belief that a confession rather than skilled police work was the way to go Intimidating suspects Acting beyond their powers or at least attempting to Briefing the press to get the public on their side Blaming Politicians Blaming Foreigners Blaming anyone but themselves
I could go on, but will stop there. A clear case of Policeman's error. Over valuing of evidence
The D.N.A, evidence was inconclusive.
FACT.
It has not been disproved that Madeleine died in the apartment.
As long as the case remains unsolved, many people will believe she died there unless there is evidence to the contrary.
You have given a critique of the PJ in the case, now if you're neutral as you claim, now provide a one of the Mccanns. 8)-)))
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 02, 2013, 08:17:21 AM
I am not interested in suspects, only in the application of the law. I have a strict rule (possibly unknown to you) which is 'innocent until proven guilty. I have a standing in criticising the exercise of authority in a matter of state versus citizen; I have no standing (legal, personal or practical) in a criminal case against an individual which has been subject to investigation and for which no-one has been charged.
People are free to believe what they want, but may reach limits of the Libel Law or good taste.
"Not being disproved" has no standing in law, or in the lexicon of any intelligent and compassionate person.
The DNA evidence was so inconclusive that the same result could have been achieved by mixing three random Europeans' blood samples.
Congratulations on a post that avoid insults.
Now work on a rational response to the proven existence of the Policeman's Fallacy which is widespread and well investigated.
As I stated.
I know exactly who you are, even with a different user name.
That matter has been dealt with.
The Mccanns are totally responsible for what happened in this case and not a fictional abductor.
If you have evidence to the contrary please provide it.
You like others have an obsession with the PJ, even though you try to hide it.
Now from you, I expect a rationale response, and remember this, Madeleine is the victim, not her parents.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Angelo222 on October 02, 2013, 08:19:04 AM
I am not interested in suspects, only in the application of the law. I have a strict rule (possibly unknown to you) which is 'innocent until proven guilty. I have a standing in criticising the exercise of authority in a matter of state versus citizen; I have no standing (legal, personal or practical) in a criminal case against an individual which has been subject to investigation and for which no-one has been charged.
People are free to believe what they want, but may reach limits of the Libel Law or good taste.
"Not being disproved" has no standing in law, or in the lexicon of any intelligent and compassionate person.
The DNA evidence was so inconclusive that the same result could have been achieved by mixing three random Europeans' blood samples.
Congratulations on a post that avoid insults.
Now work on a rational response to the proven existence of the Policeman's Fallacy which is widespread and well investigated.
You appear to be as outdated as the police you so fondly criticise. This novel belief in innocent until proven guilty might very well be the utopia you aspire to and believe in but in the real world it is usually a case of guilty until proven innocent.
As far as the op is concerned the McCanns continued resistance to taking part in a reconstruction or reconstitution as Anne calls it is very evident. This is but one factor which fires this continuing conspiracy beyond the six year point.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: C.Edwards on October 02, 2013, 08:42:39 AM
This technique has been shown to lead to major miscarriages of justice (this is after all a Justice Board.) For instance, in the US it is quite legal to mislead a suspect (about for instance DNA and Dogs) and then elicit a confession based on fear of death or long term imprisonment; US courts do not see that as illegal but English courts will not allow that under PACE or even previously under Judges Rules where such lying was cause to have the evidence thrown out.
So... what about a hypothetical situation where the DNA tests are underway but there is not yet a clear response and mr. plod tells the suspect, "you know these dna results are going to incriminate you, make it easy on yourself and confess before the results are back and you'll get credit from the judge to make your sentence less..." even though the results aren't yet known?
An innocent person would surely say, "bring it on." The not-so-innocent may get stressed by such a cunning ruse but surely that's the whole point of such a technique - to test the resolve of those who aren't telling the truth. The hypothetical situation described above does not contain any lies, neither would it cause any confessions elicited to be overruled in an English court.
Nice to see such an influx of people from STM, eh? 8(0(*
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: C.Edwards on October 02, 2013, 08:47:53 AM
"Not being disproved" has no standing in law, or in the lexicon of any intelligent and compassionate person.
Here is where you jumped the shark and crossed into complete nonsense. It was all going so well up until then!
I (and many other sceptics, I'm sure) just *love* the way that you bastions of moral superiority (i.e. Pros) lump every sceptic/doubter into the category marked "dribbling lunatic p-forking h-word with no empathy/compassion".
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 02, 2013, 08:56:31 AM
Here is where you jumped the shark and crossed into complete nonsense. It was all going so well up until then!
I (and many other sceptics, I'm sure) just *love* the way that you bastions of moral superiority (i.e. Pros) lump every sceptic/doubter into the category marked "dribbling lunatic p-forking h-word with no empathy/compassion".
Nicely put C. Edwards. 8@??)( 8@??)(
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: C.Edwards on October 02, 2013, 09:07:37 AM
I know exactly who you are, even with a different user name.
That matter has been dealt with.
The Mccanns are totally responsible for what happened in this case and not a fictional abductor.
If you have evidence to the contrary please provide it.
You like others have an obsession with the PJ, even though you try to hide it.
Now from you, I expect a rationale response, and remember this, Madeleine is the victim, not her parents.
What? We have intelligent informative posts from 'newbies' and your response is not to enter into civilised debate but to 'deal with them' ? Why don't you actually read the posts instead of apparently devoting your time to getting rid of the authors.
There are people here with totally opposing viewpoints but who are perfectly capable and willing to enter into reasoned debate - and to my knowledge this is the only Forum where that actually happens. The fact that you are not one of them should not be a reason to spoil that IMO.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Albertini on October 02, 2013, 11:56:33 AM
You do not give any reference for this 'suspect' status. Which law decides who has this status and who does not? If you are just saying that anyone who wants to say they are suspects can do so, then that is probably right (though potentially libelous) but I know of no legal definable status that can be applied or removed that bears any resemblance to your concept of 'suspect'.
May i also extend my warmest welcome back Debunker.
A person suspected of potentially being involved is called a suspect in police investigations the world over.
There is no law to cover whether the police suspect someone, and indeed the suspect remains innocent until proven guilty by a court.
That suspect is still innocent until proven guilty whilst the police investigate and indeed, as in this case, after the case is shelved.
They are innocent in the eyes of the law and remain so until such time is evidence is found against them or someone else BUT that does not mean the police cannot and do not suspect they may be involved.
Don't be ridiculous about anyone being a suspect. That's plainly ludicrous. Police would suspect those with the means or the motive or the opportunity to carry out the crime.
The parents would automatically assume suspect status given they were the last to see the victim alive and well and that a high number of missing child crimes are committed by family members.
It is then the job of the police and/or the parents to provide evidence against them or for the parents to "prove their innocence" to the investigation so they can be ruled out of their enquiries.
Usually in the case of missing children the parents are only too happy to rule themselves out in order that the police may then follow other leads.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: carlymichelle on October 02, 2013, 11:59:49 AM
May i also extend my warmest welcome back Debunker.
A person suspected of potentially being involved is called a suspect in police investigations the world over.
There is no law to cover whether the police suspect someone, and indeed the suspect remains innocent until proven guilty by a court.
That suspect is still innocent until proven guilty whilst the police investigate and indeed, as in this case, after the case is shelved.
They are innocent in the eyes of the law and remain so until such time is evidence is found against them or someone else BUT that does not mean the police cannot and do not suspect they may be involved.
Don't be ridiculous about anyone being a suspect. That's plainly ludicrous. Police would suspect those with the means or the motive or the opportunity to carry out the crime.
The parents would automatically assume suspect status given they were the last to see the victim alive and well and that a high number of missing child crimes are committed by family members.
It is then the job of the police and/or the parents to provide evidence against them or for the parents to "prove their innocence" to the investigation so they can be ruled out of their enquiries.
Usually in the case of missing children the parents are only too happy to rule themselves out in order that the police may then follow other leads.
well said!! and oh that is debunker? luckly i have it on ignore
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Albertini on October 02, 2013, 12:03:51 PM
If you believe that, you are seriously I'll informed. Read the Human Rights Act which in British Law guarantees the right to presumption of innocence.
The McCann never refused to do a reconstruction- the letter is in the files.
How naive! They couldn't refuse due to their arguido status so went about it the back door route by getting their Tapas pals to refuse it knowing their acceptance of it was irrelevant if the others wouldn't take part.
Do you think if the parents really wanted a reconstruction to go ahead their pals would have refused?
Come off it.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Lyall on October 02, 2013, 12:13:38 PM
Any intelligent and compassionate person would support the principle of innocent until proven otherwise. Simple.
I said nothing about the epithets that you use - just a straw man again
Nothing's simple in cases involving missing and/or deceased children Sepe. Some defend the parents irrespective of what happened to their child, and that's been the problem since May 4 2007.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: carlymichelle on October 02, 2013, 12:15:14 PM
Nothing's simple in cases involving missing and/or deceased children Sepe. Some defend the parents irrespective of what happened to their child, and that's been the problem since May 4 2007.
theres no defence for leaving 3 children under 4 alone NONE
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: sadie on October 02, 2013, 01:01:20 PM
I am not interested in suspects, only in the application of the law. I have a strict rule (possibly unknown to you) which is 'innocent until proven guilty. I have a standing in criticising the exercise of authority in a matter of state versus citizen; I have no standing (legal, personal or practical) in a criminal case against an individual which has been subject to investigation and for which no-one has been charged.
People are free to believe what they want, but may reach limits of the Libel Law or good taste.
"Not being disproved" has no standing in law, or in the lexicon of any intelligent and compassionate person.
The DNA evidence was so inconclusive that the same result could have been achieved by mixing three random Europeans' blood samples.
Congratulations on a post that avoid insults.
Now work on a rational response to the proven existence of the Policeman's Fallacy which is widespread and well investigated.
Pwew! Brilliant post 8@??)( 8@??)( 8((()*/
I think I know who you are too. Welcome back.
sadie x
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: C.Edwards on October 02, 2013, 01:03:52 PM
Do you and C.Edwards include me in that? If so, you should know that I am firmly on the fence and comfortable there. I stand by principles and experience gained investigating some appalling miscarriages of justice, so I tend to defend principles I hold sacrosanct. I am neither a pro nor sceptic in the sense you mean, but I require evidence, evidence and more evidence.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
It is only the bullying of the Mccanns and the fact that I cannot see any evidence whatsoever that they did anything or could have done anything, that makes me a pro
I also think I have worked out who did it. (masaterminded it)
I want Justice. I will also defend the bullied against the "put the boot in brigade"
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: ferryman on October 02, 2013, 07:04:08 PM
Reconstructions/reconstitutions (call them what you will) with the aim of attempting to estblish truth/guilt or innocence of those involved by use of a replicated sequence of events (with the best will in the world) just cannot work.
I've used the example before and I'll use it again.
The shooting of Jean-Paul de Menezes at London Underground Stockwell Station.
By erroneous eye-witness accounts, Mr Demenezes was wearing a knee-length, heavy-weight coat with leads trailing underneath, pole-volted barriers, dashed onto a train, was pinned to the floor and shot bullets to the head.
The only accurate bit was the last. He was wearing a light-weight denim jacked, made an orderly and leisurely entrance to the platform, stopped to buy a paper, boarded the train in an orthodox manner, was pounced on, pinned to the floor and shot dead.
We know that because of examination of CCTV footage of events as they occurred.
What price a reonstruction/reconstitution of revealing the truth?
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Jazzy on October 02, 2013, 08:05:32 PM
theres no defence for leaving 3 children under 4 alone NONE
Carlymichelle, is that the only point you want to make? Ever? You are quite right, there is no defence against your point, young children deserve their parents. However, they don't deserve to disappear, and neither do their parents deserve the torture they have had to endure.
You posted that you were left alone and cried and screamed. Would you want your parents treated the same way the Mccanns are had the worst happened to you?
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: C.Edwards on October 02, 2013, 08:15:59 PM
What price a reonstruction/reconstitution of revealing the truth?
Well, call me an old softie but where the principle protagonists are involved, fairly high, I would say. Sadly for de Menezes this wasn't possible and there was CCTV footage anyway.
If the investigating force say they want the entire thing reconstituted, who the hell are the McCanns, their friends or the blinkered mass of their supporters to say it'll serve no purpose?
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: sadie on October 02, 2013, 09:52:47 PM
Well, call me an old softie but where the principle protagonists are involved, fairly high, I would say. Sadly for de Menezes this wasn't possible and there was CCTV footage anyway.
If the investigating force say they want the entire thing reconstituted, who the hell are the McCanns, their friends or the blinkered mass of their supporters to say it'll serve no purpose?
Well I wouldn't call you a softie.
I would call you a hard nosed callow person
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: drummer on October 02, 2013, 09:54:43 PM
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: C.Edwards on October 02, 2013, 09:56:26 PM
Hmm. "Inexperienced and immature..." is that truly what you wanted to convey there, Sadie? Hard nosed? Damn right.
The immature part fits . Your reasoning is immature IMO
Callow = lacking experience of life.
If you behave as you do then you exhibit a lack of experiene of the tragedies that befall people and how it affects them.
I have personally experienced such tragedy but I have also spent years Counselling people ... and I understand how lifes tradegies affect people. Also how bullying affects people. Thousands of people each year seriuosly affected by the thoughtless and cruel words of hard- nosed others. Many committing suicide because of it.
Of course it is relevant Red. Pull the other one.
Just cos Sepe comes in from a different angle to you, doesn't make his contribution irrelevant
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 03, 2013, 07:46:06 AM
You continually take a statist view- common among the right wing and ill educated.
The correct question is
"Who do the PJ think they are trying to force people to do something against their will and over which they have no power."
Just because they are police they have no more powers than they have been given in law. They cannot insist on further powers just to assist their case.
Irrelevant.
All that was required was the mccanns and associates to get off their collective derrieres and help the investigation, as was promised, and never delivered.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 03, 2013, 07:55:31 AM
Fascism is a political that values the State above the individual. People in fascist states must do what they are told. People in Rule of Law states have rights above the government- even the government must obey the law.
It seems you would chooses statism or fascism over the Rule of Law and Liberty.
Your choice.
Utter rubbish.
You are not resounding to the salient point.
Hardly unusual. 8)-)))
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: C.Edwards on October 03, 2013, 08:14:29 AM
You continually take a statist view- common among the right wing and ill educated.
The correct question is
"Who do the PJ think they are trying to force people to do something against their will and over which they have no power."
Just because they are police they have no more powers than they have been given in law. They cannot insist on further powers just to assist their case.
Yeah, it's completely obvious to all that I'm a thick Nazi Debunker, just come out with it and say it, why don't you?
Cite your evidence that my view is one typically held by the thickos on the right wing please. Otherwise it's just your worthless opinion again, by your own rules, right?
The question was as I put it. If the investigating force ask persons directly involved/of interest to do something to assist the investigation then who are those people - who are "cooperating fully" remember - to question the reasons?
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 03, 2013, 08:17:15 AM
And yet another swerve. I understand now why I stopped responding to you before. You truly are unable to answer any sensible point put to you, aren't you? Instead you rely on dropping in little irrelevancies laced with what you think are cleverly hidden insults and then skip on to the next point without ever addressing the issues. I'm pretty sure it won't be long before you're dealt with again. In the meantime, talk to the hand.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 03, 2013, 08:20:39 AM
And yet another swerve. I understand now why I stopped responding to you before. You truly are unable to answer any sensible point put to you, aren't you? Instead you rely on dropping in little irrelevancies laced with what you think are cleverly hidden insults and then skip on to the next point without ever addressing the issues. I'm pretty sure it won't be long before you're dealt with again. In the meantime, talk to the hand.
8@??)( 8@??)( @)(++(*
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Redblossom on October 03, 2013, 08:33:17 AM
Dont recall the PJ forcing anyne to do anything.....quite the opposite, they corresponded politely and in full over and over to questions and fears, tried to accommodate the tapas group as best they could, gave various reassurances...i suppose i understand whythey stopped short at agreeing to requests to lift the mccanns arguido status before they would agree to return @)(++(*
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Redblossom on October 03, 2013, 10:16:36 AM
Poor comprehension I am afraid. I did not say that the PJ did anything outside their powers. Merely pointed out that some here would like a fascist approach where the State controlled individual behaviour.
No, but you brought the subject up in relation to the non cooperation of the tapas group with the police and I cant see any posts which suggest the tapas group should have been forced back and again no one even attempted to do so, yes, the PJ acted within the law....
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Redblossom on October 03, 2013, 11:03:21 AM
" If the investigating force ask persons directly involved/of interest to do something to assist the investigation then who are those people - who are "cooperating fully" remember - to question the reasons?"
That assumes the State is right to require citizens to do this. The answer to the "Who are these people?" is "Free citizens exercising their right to decline."
Now to one side that may look like obstructing and enquiry, but to the other it might look like refusing to be involved in a Police framing.
On balance it is more obstructing as the reassurances put in place, the legal bods that would be around, I dont see how the police could have framed them by their restepping their own statements!
To go back to the OP yes it was to all their detriments...crowing we will do anything and when asked said no
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Lyall on October 03, 2013, 11:08:08 AM
The public may or may not be impressed. It does not matter.
It is right that people should have such liberties.
The public are not impressed that we no longer hang people; the public are not impressed that we allow people the right to silence; the public would happily harm unpopular possible miscreants without allowing a trial; the public are often possessed of unacceptable values that are not appropriate to modern society.
Public opinion may not matter to you, but it obviously does matter to the proceedings in Lisbon - it's at the heart of their case.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Benice on October 03, 2013, 11:18:44 AM
" If the investigating force ask persons directly involved/of interest to do something to assist the investigation then who are those people - who are "cooperating fully" remember - to question the reasons?" --------
Saepe sepe: That assumes the State is right to require citizens to do this. The answer to the "Who are these people?" is "Free citizens exercising their right to decline."
Now to one side that may look like obstructing and enquiry, but to the other it might look like refusing to be involved in a Police framing.
And who could blame them after what they had witnessed during the previous months. To expect any of them to have the slightest trust in the PJ is quite ridiculous - they would be ultra suspicious about their motives and understandably so IMO.
Apart from anything else the PJ request that they should not bring their children to Portugal with them - would be enough to set alarm bells ringing - if it was me.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Redblossom on October 03, 2013, 11:29:32 AM
Police with a convicting mindset will always take advantage.
It was their right to refuse to become involved in what they saw as overbearing, useless and potentially a stitch up.
Yes and a right they exercised, they must have been so sure it wouldnt have forwarded the investigation...The PP explained how the exercise was set up to clear doubts remaining about them, ie opportunity to clear them more..Benice dont start being paranoid now, seldom helps
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Benice on October 03, 2013, 11:31:37 AM
Actually Stephen it is your repetitive posts which are boring imo. Constantly pronouncing other people's posts as 'Rubbish' or 'Utter Rubbish' or 'Boring' ad nauseum, as your only contribution - adds nothing to any debate.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Benice on October 03, 2013, 11:52:58 AM
Yes and a right they exercised, they must have been so sure it wouldnt have forwarded the investigation.....Benice dont start being paranoid now, seldom helps
LOL Red I'm not being paranoid, but I would not blame the group if they were. As it is - I believe they were ultra suspicious - which IMO is reflected in some of their comments. (1) that the tone of the request appeared to have changed from an 'invitation' - to their being compelled by law to return, and (2) the fact that the McCanns were described as 'the offenders' at one stage.
Having been the victims of a very nasty smear campaign via the Press, aided and abetted by some elements within the PJ - and having watched their innocent friends similarly persecuted, villified and then made arguidos - and receiving no explanation as to how a reconstruction could help find Madeleine, then IMO they had no reason to trust a single word that came from the PJ. Without 'trust' - their decision not to go was perfectly understandable IMO.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Redblossom on October 03, 2013, 12:02:10 PM
Nothing to do with trying to prove their admitted mindset at the time that parents were responsible for an accidental death. It is all in the files.
So you mean with Amaral off the case and after Mr Rebelo reviewed the case, did his own sort of reconstruction, the original thesis was never dropped? Interesting
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Redblossom on October 03, 2013, 12:06:10 PM
LOL Red I'm not being paranoid, but I would not blame the group if they were. As it is - I believe they were ultra suspicious - which IMO is reflected in some of their comments. (1) that the tone of the request appeared to have changed from an 'invitation' - to their being compelled by law to return, and (2) the fact that the McCanns were described as 'the offenders' at one stage.
Having been the victims of a very nasty smear campaign via the Press, aided and abetted by some elements within the PJ - and having watched their innocent friends similarly persecuted, villified and then made arguidos - and receiving no explanation as to how a reconstruction could help find Madeleine, then IMO they had no reason to trust a single word that came from the PJ. Without 'trust' - their decision not to go was perfectly understandable IMO.
Or maybe not...pls dont talk about trust of the pj they were villified from day one....and no not seen any evidence they were told they were compelled or any talk of offenders
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Redblossom on October 03, 2013, 12:15:15 PM
The fact that the requesting letters for the reconstruction referred to the McCanns as 'The Offenders' kind of gave the game away. And the final report from the police shows that the McCanns being guilty was the line being investigated to the end of the case.
Where is this offenders letter?
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Lace on October 03, 2013, 01:56:04 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Jez Wilkins say he wouldn't return for the reconstruction?
How would it have proceeded without him?
Would they have used another member of the public as a stand in for him?
If so why couldn't they use other members of the public for the Tapas friends who couldn't return?
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Luz on October 03, 2013, 08:11:22 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Jez Wilkins say he wouldn't return for the reconstruction?
How would it have proceeded without him?
Would they have used another member of the public as a stand in for him?
If so why couldn't they use other members of the public for the Tapas friends who couldn't return?
The cancelled reconstruction http://www.mccannfiles.com/id279.html (http://www.mccannfiles.com/id279.html)
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Lace on October 04, 2013, 10:18:02 AM
So, Luz, Jez Wilkins said that the information given to him for the reconstruction give no real reason for him to go back, it looks as though he thought that going back for a reconstruction would not be of any help to the investigation either. Not just the McCann friends. So there you have it.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: Victoria on October 04, 2013, 12:13:56 PM
So, Luz, Jez Wilkins said that the information given to him for the reconstruction give no real reason for him to go back, it looks as though he thought that going back for a reconstruction would not be of any help to the investigation either. Not just the McCann friends. So there you have it.
It's clear that the lack of reconstruction was not the McCanns' fault, no matter how the conspiracy theorists try to play it.
Title: Re: Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?
Post by: C.Edwards on October 04, 2013, 07:20:54 PM
And this is the DNA fallacy. It is not evidence of guilt on it its own. DNA needs to be integrated with the other evidence. It can mislead. Contamination is a serious issue and in this case the DNA of both parents and Madeleine will be all over the flat and possibly elsewhere. The collection and anti-contamination procedures are very important too. By the way have you ever heard of Angela Psaila. If not look her up. The police told her that her blood had been found in the flat and made her perjure herself against the Cardiff Five. Her certain knowledge that she was not in the flat when Lynette was murdered was overborne by the sly policing you describe. She became a police witness and was so thoroughly convinced that she was there by the end that she shouted down defence lawyers, saying her blood was there. It wasn't. 13 years later she was flabberghasted to be informed that DNA had proved that her blood was not there. Fast forward a few years and find another vulnerable witness or suspect and you will still get admissions and if the DNA results are inconvenient it will be manipulated like it was in Schiedammer for example.
In the spirit that I hope you're not on a deliberate wind up, I shall respond "sensibly".
At no point in my post did I say that DNA evidence alone was evidence of guilt. You've put up a strawman argument and refuted something I didn't say. I gave an example in which the police could legally exert pressure on a guilty suspect and they would potentially confess whereby an innocent would not.
I simply can't believe that you're trying to refute my (hypothetical anyway) example by using a very vulnerable and clinically retarded person with an IQ of just 55. It's hardly representative of anything, is it. Well that's my take anyway, others may have different views.
STM is the stop the myths forum. There are at least 5 members here that are on that forum too but they mainly use different names there.