Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: faithlilly on June 11, 2015, 11:17:19 AM
Title: If Only....!
Post by: faithlilly on June 11, 2015, 11:17:19 AM
If only the Portuguese had taken this course of action when Kate McCann claimed she had been offered a deal by them.
But she was offered a deal, it was conveyed to her to consider by her solicitor following the pre arguido interview.
She was not offered a deal. Her solicitor himself said it was a misunderstanding. She was told what would be the punishment if she admitted to accidental death. That was not a deal that was simply making her aware of the facts hence her solicitor's use of the word misunderstanding. Still it seems you have already decided where the truth lies so no need for discussion.
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: John on June 12, 2015, 11:46:40 AM
She was not offered a deal. Her solicitor himself said it was a misunderstanding. She was told what would be the punishment if she admitted to accidental death. That was not a deal that was simply making her aware of the facts hence her solicitor's use of the word misunderstanding. Still it seems you have already decided where the truth lies so no need for discussion.
If I recall correctly Kate's solicitor left her in the interview room for many hours and went off for a private discussion with the investigators. It would have been revealed to him then what was on offer as far as any early admission of guilt was concerned and as you rightly have pointed out, the repercussions of not doing so.
Kate reveals in her book that when she later spoke with her lawyer after arriving back at the villa in the early hours of the next morning she felt despondent in that her lawyer was more or less suggesting she admit guilt and received a nominal sentence. In that way, Gerry could take the remaining two children home to England and at least resume some semblance of a normal life.
Sounds like a deal to me whichever way you cut it?
Extracts from Madeleine
We stopped again at 7.50pm, supposedly for five minutes. I was getting tired by now and hoping it would al be finished fairly soon. No such luck. Those five minutes stretched into two and a quarter hours. Carlos had disappeared into a meeting with several of the PJ officers and I was starting to feel upset and frustrated. It had been a long day and I just wanted to be back at the vila with my family. Trisha had been patiently waiting al this time too, sitting in the reception area in a fug of cigarette smoke. Meanwhile, in Praia da Luz, Gerry was becoming increasingly worried. I heard later that he’d twice come back to Portimão in the hope of colecting Trisha and me. At midnight he was sent home. Our lawyer would bring us back, he was told. At last Carlos reappeared. He was shaking his head and looked anxious. I had no idea what had been going on but it was rapidly becoming clear that things were not as straightforward as I’d hoped. It was 12.40am by the time the interview – and the attendant rigmarole of having it translated into Portuguese and then read back to me in English by the interpreter – was over. I was told I would have to return at ten o’clock in the morning.
Back at the vila, Carlos informed me, as Ferreira had indicated, that he needed to speak to Gerry and me in private. We sat down in the sitting room with Carlos, and Sofia, Eileen and Trisha left us to it. Carlos stil looked very concerned. There was a great deal we needed to discuss, he told us. He reiterated that the situation was not good. The PJ had a lot of ‘evidence’ against us, and I was certain to be made an arguida in the morning.
Then came the best bit. Carlos announced what the police had proposed. If we, or rather I, admitted that Madeleine had died in an accident in the apartment, and confessed to having hidden and disposed of her body, the sentence I’d receive would be much more lenient: only two years, he said, as opposed to what I’d be looking at if I ended up being charged with homicide. Pardon? I realy wasn’t sure if I could possibly have heard him correctly. My incredulity turned to rage. How dare they suggest I lie? How dare they expect me to live with such a charge against my name? And even more importantly, did they realy expect me to confess to a crime they had made up, to falsely claim to the whole world that my daughter was dead, when the result would be that the whole world stopped looking for her? This police tactic might have worked successfuly in the past but it certainly wasn’t going to work with me. Over my dead body. ‘You need to think about it,’ Carlos insisted. ‘It would only be one of you. Gerry could go back to work.’ I was speechless. The incentive to accept this ‘offer’ seemed to be that if we didn’t agree to it, the authorities could or would go after us for murder, and if we were found guilty, we might both receive life sentences. Was this what it came down to? Confess to this lesser charge or risk something much worse.
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: ferryman on June 12, 2015, 11:56:31 AM
She was not offered a deal. Her solicitor himself said it was a misunderstanding. She was told what would be the punishment if she admitted to accidental death. That was not a deal that was simply making her aware of the facts hence her solicitor's use of the word misunderstanding. Still it seems you have already decided where the truth lies so no need for discussion.
Why did Amaral lie in his interview to the Spanish El Mundo magazine that no one talked about murder?
By Silvia Taulés The apartment window stayed always shut, in spite of what Kate McCann said The girl might have fallen from the sofa; there could have been an accident because of the sleeping solution Gonçalo Amaral in a moment of the interview (Photo: Bernabé Cordón)
Madrid - He arrives late, with a certain’ star’ look. His book (Esquilo, 2008), which will be officially presented on the 9 of September, has sold 120.000 copies in two weeks, a record in Portugal.
This, once begun, was unstoppable. Gonçalo Amaral, the visible head of an investigation that had thousands of people in suspense, tells why he remains insistent that it was Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry, who were responsible for her disappearance.
Question – You defend the theory that the parents are guilty of what happened to Madeleine McCann.
Answer – No. That is not in the book.
Q - However that is the theory that one can understand from reading it.
A - From the synopsis you also obtain the same conclusions of the book.
Q - What are the reasons that make you believe that imply the McCanns in the disappearance of their daughter?
A - First, it is that they always defended the theory of the kidnapping. The mother said that the window of the room was open when she saw that the girl was not there. That is not correct, the window was closed and is impossible that the girl left that way. We worked in the apartment and the window was closed. The parents have always defended that the girl was alive and they were the first saying that Maddie could be dead.
Q - Other evidences?
A - The witnesses, there were several incongruities between their statements. Those that had dinner with the McCanns that one night, their friends, invented the system of monitoring of the children. Why? There are various details that take to you to think about the culpability of the parents. There are two different lists about the monitoring system.
Q - You speak of incongruities in the declarations about the monitoring system. The book also indicates that the nine people who had dinner together drank an average of eight wine bottles, four of red and four of white. Isn’t there the possibility that, between the disappearance and the alcohol, they were confused and that they did not remember the exact minutes in which they watched the children?
A - Right, but then there is the window where we found Kate’s finger prints, the mother of the girl. She said that she had never touched that window, and the cleaning lady assured that she had cleaned it on the previous day. And above all she said that the window was open when it was closed, it doesn’t add up.
Q - It could not be that the mother or the father closed the window later, when returning to the room to search for the girl?
A - There are three people who say that they walked in front of the apartment and saw the window closed. Didn’t they state that it was open? After all what is the truth? And there are other things. The mother says that she entered in the room and that the windows were open and the shutters were raised. No one else saw that. They simulated a kidnapping. They wanted us to say that someone went in to steal and when the girl was discovered he killed her.
Q - That could have happened?
A – It is very complicated.
Q - Why?
A - Let us return to the persons who passed in front of the apartment. Nobody saw anything strange. We investigated all the persons who commit theft in the area. There were no unknown fingerprints in the apartment, of course they could have used gloves, that is true, but that could not have been the case. Furthermore, the parents were the first to speak of death. And it is normal to think that their daughter could have died, but they have never admitted this in public. I do not believe that the parents killed her.
Q - So, what are we talking about?
A - About an accident. The child could have fallen from a sofa, could have had an accident with Calpol (a sleeping solution). We never had access to the girl’s medical history, so we don’t know whether she was healthy or not. We can only speculate. There are many very strange details.
Update - The rest of the Interview, thanks to Mercedes from Hasta que Se Sepa La Verdade (Until the Truth is Known)
Q - What do you think that could have happened that night?
A - Both the British and Portuguese police, and even the prosecutor, who has already changed his mind, thought the same. We talked about death by others, not murder. In the room blood and cadaver odour was found just below a window where a sofa was. The father was talking to a friend just outside that window for a while. The girl did not have a a heavy sleep, that's what the parents said. Perhaps she heard her father and climbed to the sofa bellow the window. But the parents, for the girl not to go out,moved it away from the wall. Madeleine could have fallen.
Q - The girl falls from the sofa, dies with the blow and the parents find her.
A - The mother. It is the mother who finds the girl dead.
Q - But I am trying to think out an idea. How can a mother who has just found her daughter dead on the floor decides to hide the corpse? And how do you hide the corpse of a girl of nearly four years old so that no one can't find it?
A – This is what we were investigating when I was dismissed from the case. I want to recall that there is an Irish man who claimed to have seen Gerry McCann with a girl in his arms, on his way towards the beach that same night. That testimony has been hidden. The dogs specialized in finding traces of blood and odour of cadaver, found both in the wall of the apartment and in the boot of the car that the McCann rented 23 days later.
Q - Did Gerry McCann buried his dead daughter on the beach and then unearthed and put her in the boot after 23 days later?
A - We do not know. The Irish [witness] that I have told you about saw Gerry on television with a child in his arms arriving in the UK and stated that it was the same image they had seen back in May in Portugal. That man spent two days without sleeping when he realized what he had found, but nobody has talked about them. And what one of the Irish has said is logical, a man with a child in his arms toward the beach.
Q - But this implies that the whole group, the nine people who eat dinner that night, had agreed to lie.
A - All of them. Because, if you do not know, the British law regarding negligence and child welfare is very strict. They left their children alone in the apartments. In the UK, if you leave a child alone for half an hour, you lose the custody. After Madeleine's death, if it had been made public that it was an accident, everyone could have lost custody.
Q - So you consider that one of the reasons for the parents and friends to have lied is because they feared to loose their children's custody.
A - Yes, yes. Nobody has opened legal proceedings for what happened, for the negligence, and we have asked to the British authorities why. Have they answered? Of course not.
Q – Let's go to the day of the disappearance. At 17h30 is the last time that neutral witnesses have seen Maddie alive. At 20h30, her parents sit down, composed, at the table for dinner with friends. In the middle, Gerry even plays tennis. Is there enough time for the girl to fall from the sofa, to kill herself [sic, se mate], for the parents to realize, to decide to conceal her, for the brothers to be sleeping, and for them to arrive undisturbed and sit at the table as if nothing had happened? Even more, for them to sit down at the table after having convinced the rest of the group that they mustn't report the death of the girl?
A - In those three hours there are inconsistencies between witnesses. Some said that the checkings lasted half an hour, others said 30 seconds...
Q – It is obvious that they contradict each other, but did they have time to do everything you say they did?
A - Yes, of course they had time. Some say that Gerry had a strange behaviour on the table.
Q – Did they?
A – They said that he spoke too much, gesticulated a lot, quite the opposite from the previous days. For me this is a very real hypothesis.
Q - You have a long career as an investigator, years in which you have faced criminals and innocents. What do you see when facing the McCanns?
A - They are two persons with much fear. I do not know if they fear to be discovered or fear the police of an unknown country.
Q – It was said that Kate was very cold. But I've seen her cry.
A - So did I. She is not cold. There was a moment, in a meeting with them, when we set out the sofa theory. Kate puts her head down, looking distant, and, after a few seconds, she looked up again as if nothing had happened. She looked like she was escaping from the role that she was interpreting.
Q - When you raised the hypothesis that the girl might have died after falling off the sofa, did Kate McCann answer?
A - She did not answer, she just dropped her head for a moment, as if she was about to faint. She had an emotional collapse that lasted just a moment.
Q - And Gerry McCann?
A – He is a very strong person, dominant. He's a surgeon, a man capable of making decisions very quickly. That was good for him to be able to decide over Madeleine. If you have to hide the body, you must decide quickly. And it could only be hidden on the beach, and you have to take her on foot. This is where the statements from the Irish witness is important, the one that no one has taken into account.
Q - What is your opinion?
A - To me, Gerry hid Madeleine's body on the beach. And after a few days he moved her with his car. We work following this lead. Trying to find out the date of the switch, some details, but we were on the way. The Irish was about to arrive in Portugal, but everything was delayed too much, he even received external pressures. In the end, he didn't testify for the Police.
Q – They [McCanns] have appeared in all the media to announce the disappearance of their daughter and if it ends up that they have done it, what are they, psychopaths?
A – No, they are human. If the McCann admit that their daughter is dead, they can no longer collect money from the Maddie fund, and that's a lot of money, over one million pounds. That's why they say that the girl was abducted.
Q - What if they do not want to lose hope? It all seems very morbid.
A - It is. If they admit that she is dead they will lose their style of life. They are human, not psychopaths.
Q - You said that the girl was frozen.
A - For there to be vestiges in the boot of the car rented 23 days later, they must have preserved the corpse in some way. I believe that when they put it in the boot, with the heat of those days in the Algarve, happened a similar situation with that of the shopping bags, which melt and then the water is transferred to the car.
Q – Couldn't the vestiges be transferred from the room to the parents clothes and after to the car?
A - But if you have blood on your clothes it is because you've seen it [sic]. And the blood that the dogs found was washed blood, it was remains not clear spots.
Q - Neither you nor Alípio Ribeiro (former director of the Judicial Police), nor Olegário Souza (former police spokesman), are still on their posts. You have even pre-retired.
A - There were too many pressures. The McCanns have many contacts and nobody was interested to know the truth.
Q - Is it the British Empire against Portugal?
A - Yes, it seems so.
TRACES OF DNA IN THE CAR'S BOOT The Scotland Yard dogs detected, in the boot of the car rented by the McCanns 23 days after the disappearance of the girl, traces of DNA which could belong to the girl; for the Portuguese Police more evidence, that Maddie was not kidnapped but that she died in the Ocean Club apartment.
Muchas Gracias to Ines for the late hour help and correction of my Luso-Spanish, Muchas gracias to Mercedes for her translation of the rest of the article and Muchas gracias to Rachel for the full article in Spanish.
Note: Full article in Spanish- Rapidshare Link
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: Carana on June 12, 2015, 12:08:28 PM
If I recall correctly Kate's solicitor left her in the interview room for many hours and went off for a private discussion with the investigators. It would have been revealed to him then what was on offer as far as any early admission of guilt was concerned and as you rightly have pointed out, the repercussions of not doing so.
Kate reveals in her book that when she later spoke with her lawyer after arriving back at the villa in the early hours of the next morning she felt despondent in that her lawyer was more or less suggesting she admit guilt and received a nominal sentence. In that way, Gerry could take the remaining two children home to England and at least resume some semblance of a normal life.
Sounds like a deal to me whichever way you cut it?
Fast-track plea bargains in PT are not officially allowed.
Intensive questioning with little sleep over days can induce false confessions - as appears to be an issue in Amanda's case. The clue for the Italian PJ was that when they checked her phone, she was told not to go in to work that evening by Lumumba and she'd apparently replied: "See you later" - which the Italian PJ assumed meant later that evening.
To put the Italian PJ's understanding in context, apparently texting Sollecito days after the tragedy to say "I'd kill for a pizza" was also taken literally...
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: Lace on June 12, 2015, 12:18:02 PM
She was not offered a deal. Her solicitor himself said it was a misunderstanding. She was told what would be the punishment if she admitted to accidental death. That was not a deal that was simply making her aware of the facts hence her solicitor's use of the word misunderstanding. Still it seems you have already decided where the truth lies so no need for discussion.
Give me a link to the solicitor saying it was a misunderstanding please Faithlilly.
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: Admin on June 12, 2015, 12:20:12 PM
She was not offered a deal. Her solicitor himself said it was a misunderstanding. She was told what would be the punishment if she admitted to accidental death. That was not a deal that was simply making her aware of the facts hence her solicitor's use of the word misunderstanding. Still it seems you have already decided where the truth lies so no need for discussion.
Regardless of the official line in offering deals it would be naive of anyone to think for a moment that it does not happen. The police are always keen to wrap up any investigation and getting an early admission is always a bonus.
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: ferryman on June 12, 2015, 12:22:09 PM
Fast-track plea bargains in PT are not officially allowed.
Intensive questioning with little sleep over days can induce false confessions - as appears to be an issue in Amanda's case. The clue for the Italian PJ was that when they checked her phone, she was told not to go in to work that evening by Lumumba and she'd apparently replied: "See you later" - which the Italian PJ assumed meant later that evening.
To put the Italian PJ's understanding in context, apparently texting Sollecito days after the tragedy to say "I'd kill for a pizza" was also taken literally...
What happened was that the police told Kate what the sentence would be for murder (if convicted) and what the sentence would be for finding and concealing a body (apparently, a couple of years, by Portuguese law).
They told Kate that if she agreed to plead guilty to that, she would get a couple of years and Gerry would be let off scot-free; OR the couple would face murder charges.
By the proper procedures, plea-bargains can only occur after charges have been brought, and what was offered to Kate and Gerry was nothing like a plea-bargain.
But they were certainly offered a deal.
The most compelling confirmation of that from the files is Mark Harrison's reports.
He was handed a brief by the PJ to investigate that Madeleine had been murdered and worked to it.
ETA: It was Gerry's sister Philomena McCann who, in an unguarded moment, used the term plea-bargain to describe what happened when Kate and Gerry were interviewed.
In the scheme of things, a trivial slip.
But it's kept those of a certain persuasion happy and conspiracy-filled for just about ever ....
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: Angelo222 on June 12, 2015, 12:31:50 PM
What happened was that the police told Kate what the sentence would be for murder (if convicted) and what the sentence would be for finding and concealing a body (apparently, a couple of years, by Portuguese law).
They told Kate that if she agreed to plead guilty to that, she would get a couple of years and Gerry would be let off scot-free; OR the couple would face murder charges.
By the proper procedures, plea-bargains can only occur after charges have been brought, and what was offered to Kate and Gerry was nothing like a plea-bargain.
But they were certainly offered a deal.
The most compelling confirmation of that from the files is Mark Harrison's reports.
He was handed a brief by the PJ to investigate that Madeleine had been murdered and worked to it.
ETA: It was Gerry's sister Philomena McCann who, in an unguarded moment, used the term plea-bargain to describe what happened when Kate and Gerry were interviewed.
In the scheme of things, a trivial slip.
But it's kept those of a certain persuasion happy and conspiracy-filled for just about ever ....
Just like the shutters were jemmied slip?
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: Lace on June 12, 2015, 12:45:12 PM
Why wouldn't they think the shutters were jemmied or forced up Angelo?
I would say, there was a widely-held assumption (including among on-line sages) that the shutters could not be opened (conventionally!) from the outside.
That might have led to a (mistaken, but understandable) belief that the shutters, found open, had been jemmied.
Who established they could be opened from the outside?
Oh yes.
That's right.
Gerry McCann ....
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: Alfred R Jones on June 12, 2015, 02:53:57 PM
Aww, bless. You sound so utterly desperate for the McCanns to face a charge, any charge will do, and how utterly pathetic that comes across. What if the Portuguese HAD taken that course of action against Kate McCann then? How would that have achieved your longed for "Justice 4 Maddie"?
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: ferryman on June 12, 2015, 03:25:14 PM
She was not offered a deal. Her solicitor himself said it was a misunderstanding. She was told what would be the punishment if she admitted to accidental death. That was not a deal that was simply making her aware of the facts hence her solicitor's use of the word misunderstanding. Still it seems you have already decided where the truth lies so no need for discussion.
The lawyer said they were not offered a plea-bargain, which they weren't ....
But they were emphatically and unreservedly offered a deal.
Mark Harrison's reports confirm it (even though he played no part in the nefarious double-dealing of certain members of the PJ).
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: mercury on June 12, 2015, 07:13:14 PM
But it was emphatically and unreservedly (at least the offer of) a deal!
The quote in context :
'Inside the drab, tile-clad police station in Portimao, there is a television tuned to Sky News. Officers are monitoring the UK news network, which has mounted rolling coverage of the case they are investigating, for one reason: they want to know what the world is saying about them.
That explains the outrage 10 days ago, on the evening that Gerry and Kate McCann were declared formal suspects, or arguidos, in the disappearance of their daughter. Police were still questioning Gerry McCann when, already, his sister Philomena was telling Sky they had offered Kate McCann a reduced two-year sentence if she admitted to killing her daughter accidentally, hiding the body and then secretly disposing of it weeks later.
On this occasion the police officers were right to be angry. Like many things said about the McCann affair over the past days and months, the story was wrong. There was no offer of a plea bargain. It had all been "a misunderstanding", the McCann lawyer, Carlos Pinto de Abreu, explained the following day.'
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: ferryman on June 12, 2015, 10:39:09 PM
'Inside the drab, tile-clad police station in Portimao, there is a television tuned to Sky News. Officers are monitoring the UK news network, which has mounted rolling coverage of the case they are investigating, for one reason: they want to know what the world is saying about them.
That explains the outrage 10 days ago, on the evening that Gerry and Kate McCann were declared formal suspects, or arguidos, in the disappearance of their daughter. Police were still questioning Gerry McCann when, already, his sister Philomena was telling Sky they had offered Kate McCann a reduced two-year sentence if she admitted to killing her daughter accidentally, hiding the body and then secretly disposing of it weeks later.
On this occasion the police officers were right to be angry. Like many things said about the McCann affair over the past days and months, the story was wrong. There was no offer of a plea bargain. It had all been "a misunderstanding", the McCann lawyer, Carlos Pinto de Abreu, explained the following day.'
Tremlett (who wrote that article, which I have read carefully) didn't take account of the full context.
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: faithlilly on June 12, 2015, 10:45:20 PM
Tremlett (who wrote that article, which I have read carefully) didn't take account of the full context.
Tremlett was perfectly aware of the full context of the proceedings and for you to pretend that your knowledge gives you greater insight is frankly ridiculous.
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: ferryman on June 12, 2015, 10:51:58 PM
Tremlett was perfectly aware of the full context of the proceedings and for you to pretend that your knowledge gives you greater insight is frankly ridiculous.
If Tremlett was aware of the full context, then his article was mendacious.
But I'm sure it wasn't ...
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: ferryman on June 12, 2015, 11:05:14 PM
Here is the full aritcle:
With prejudice Unofficial sources and the demands of 24-hour news have led to a media storm around Gerry and Kate McCann that gets darker by the day Giles Tremlett Monday 17 September 2007 08.02 BST
Inside the drab, tile-clad police station in Portimao, there is a television tuned to Sky News. Officers are monitoring the UK news network, which has mounted rolling coverage of the case they are investigating, for one reason: they want to know what the world is saying about them.
That explains the outrage 10 days ago, on the evening that Gerry and Kate McCann were declared formal suspects, or arguidos, in the disappearance of their daughter. Police were still questioning Gerry McCann when, already, his sister Philomena was telling Sky they had offered Kate McCann a reduced two-year sentence if she admitted to killing her daughter accidentally, hiding the body and then secretly disposing of it weeks later.
On this occasion the police officers were right to be angry. Like many things said about the McCann affair over the past days and months, the story was wrong. There was no offer of a plea bargain. It had all been "a misunderstanding", the McCann lawyer, Carlos Pinto de Abreu, explained the following day.
That did not mean, of course, that Philomena McCann - one of many people speaking for what might broadly be called "the McCann camp" - was wrong about the rest of it. Portuguese police do seem to be considering accidental death followed by disposal of the corpse as a possibility in this most bizarre of cases. In this story without on-the-record sources, however, they have not even publicly confirmed that much.
It now seems incredible, however, to recall that the McCanns started suing Portugal's Tal & Qual magazine for saying just that a little over two weeks ago: Philomena McCann's statement gave British journalists the green light to start reporting the allegations against the McCanns - even though, if they are found not guilty in any future trial, editors could be sued.
The scene inside the police station helps explain something of the nature of what has become one of the world's biggest media storms. The journalists watch the police, the police watch the journalists and the world watches them all - showing an insatiable appetite for even the flimsiest reports about the McCann case.
Stir into the mix the relentless demands of 24-hour rolling journalism and some bitter, nationalistic warfare between sections of the British and Portuguese press and you get a messy, and occasionally nasty, story.
"The British press ... treats Portugal as a place full of incapable, careless incompetents," complained Francisco Moita Flores in Correio da Manha after a recent round of criticism of the Portuguese police.
Frustration reigns among journalists covering the case. Everybody who knows anything worthwhile is bound by Portugal's judicial secrecy laws not to talk. That includes the police, lawyers, court officials, the McCanns and almost anyone who has given evidence. That has not, of course, prevented the media providing a daily feast of "details". So where do these come from?
Kate and Gerry McCann might not be able to talk, but their extended family and a network of friends can, and do. Philomena, with her colourful Glaswegian vocabulary and willingness to attack the police, is among the most quoted - but there are many more.
The Portuguese police also talk, though the few gruff words issued by official spokesman Chief Inspector Olegario de Sousa rarely add anything to the story. Like any police force, however, they leak - especially to Portuguese journalists. Unfortunately the things they leak are often contradictory. For every "police source" claiming the evidence against the McCanns is strong, for example, another is ready to say it is not.
The McCanns have their own favourite journalists. Gerry McCann, for example, likes Sky's Ian Woods - who conducted the first television interview with them back in May. It was Sky who told the world the McCanns were leaving Portugal on September 9.
Although many commentators have professed amazement at the McCanns' supposedly skilful media management, this has, at times, proved chaotic. It was naive, for example, to believe that the respect showed to them in the days immediately after three-year-old Madeleine vanished would hold.
Muck-raking stories
In the early days the McCanns were allowed to set the rules for the press. They decided what happened, and when. The British media succumbed, largely, to a bout of communal sympathy. Police had said it was a kidnap. Robert Murat, an expatriate Briton, had been declared a formal suspect. He, as the McCanns do now, denied any involvement. That did not stop, however, pages and pages of muck-raking stories about him from appearing in newspapers in both Portugal and the UK.
The McCanns' early success with the press can be put down, in part, to the media experts they found working alongside them. The Mark Warner company, whose holiday apartments they had been staying in, already had a deal with PR company Bell Pottinger. That meant that Alex Woolfall, the company's crisis management head, was in Praia da Luz the day after Madeleine disappeared. When Woolfall left 10 days later, the Foreign Office stepped in. Media handlers arrived from London. They included former Daily Mirror journalist Sheree Dodd and, later, former BBC man Clarence Mitchell. Both Woolfall and Mitchell are remembered by reporters as key and immensely helpful sources as the McCann phenomenon took off.
After they left, however, things started going wrong. Portuguese newspapers started to publish unsympathetic stories at the end of June. As Portuguese journalists caught the mood music from police the relationship disintegrated further. Sandra Felgueiras, a feisty state television journalist obsessed by the family's supposed use of Calpol, became a particular bete noire.
Some Portuguese commentators are aware that their press, like some of their British counterparts, have gone too far. "The crowd now wants the parents to be the murderers because they are British (and, therefore, not Portuguese) and so that the worst of the British press has to surrender to the worst of the Portuguese press and admit that the latter were right," commented Mario Negreiros in Portugal's Jornal de Negocios.
Justine McGuinness, the campaign manager who took over after Mitchell left, stood down from the job last week; she is understood to have been exhausted by the intensity of the campaign. The McCanns have talked to, among others, former News of the World and Hello! editor Phil Hall about their future media needs, but seem to be finding it hard to hire a permanent replacement. Hanover PR, run by John Major's former press secretary Charles Lewington, was taking calls over the weekend, but stressed it was not working for the McCanns permanently.
It is hard to overestimate the global reach of the McCann story. The Associated Press, which rivals Reuters as the world's biggest global news agency, took reporters away from a meeting of European Union foreign ministers in northern Portugal to cover the McCanns' sudden change of fortune at Portimao police station. The decision paid off. The AP story was the most-read story on many US newspaper websites that day.
The strain on journalists in the Algarve has been immense. Working days have stretched for up to 18 hours or more. The McCann story has provided the British print media with the same test of modern, 24-hour, seven-day web-driven journalism as Virginia Tech gave their US counterparts.
Editors at newspaper websites realised back in May that McCann stories quickly shot to the top of their "most read" rankings. The best summary of the McCanns' current situation came from a Portuguese commentator, Joao Marques dos Santos of Correio da Manha. "The theory of the presumption of innocence for an arguido is a joke. When someone is declared an arguido, the exact opposite occurs. That person, whether innocent or not, is considered by investigators to be potentially guilty. The effects are devastating and irreparable."
The media, said McCann lawyer Pinto de Abreu, may be doing even more damage than that. "The media coverage could prejudice not just people's reputations but also the investigation itself," he told journalists last week.
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: faithlilly on June 12, 2015, 11:15:13 PM
With prejudice Unofficial sources and the demands of 24-hour news have led to a media storm around Gerry and Kate McCann that gets darker by the day Giles Tremlett Monday 17 September 2007 08.02 BST
Inside the drab, tile-clad police station in Portimao, there is a television tuned to Sky News. Officers are monitoring the UK news network, which has mounted rolling coverage of the case they are investigating, for one reason: they want to know what the world is saying about them.
That explains the outrage 10 days ago, on the evening that Gerry and Kate McCann were declared formal suspects, or arguidos, in the disappearance of their daughter. Police were still questioning Gerry McCann when, already, his sister Philomena was telling Sky they had offered Kate McCann a reduced two-year sentence if she admitted to killing her daughter accidentally, hiding the body and then secretly disposing of it weeks later.
On this occasion the police officers were right to be angry. Like many things said about the McCann affair over the past days and months, the story was wrong. There was no offer of a plea bargain. It had all been "a misunderstanding", the McCann lawyer, Carlos Pinto de Abreu, explained the following day.
That did not mean, of course, that Philomena McCann - one of many people speaking for what might broadly be called "the McCann camp" - was wrong about the rest of it. Portuguese police do seem to be considering accidental death followed by disposal of the corpse as a possibility in this most bizarre of cases. In this story without on-the-record sources, however, they have not even publicly confirmed that much.
It now seems incredible, however, to recall that the McCanns started suing Portugal's Tal & Qual magazine for saying just that a little over two weeks ago: Philomena McCann's statement gave British journalists the green light to start reporting the allegations against the McCanns - even though, if they are found not guilty in any future trial, editors could be sued.
The scene inside the police station helps explain something of the nature of what has become one of the world's biggest media storms. The journalists watch the police, the police watch the journalists and the world watches them all - showing an insatiable appetite for even the flimsiest reports about the McCann case.
Stir into the mix the relentless demands of 24-hour rolling journalism and some bitter, nationalistic warfare between sections of the British and Portuguese press and you get a messy, and occasionally nasty, story.
"The British press ... treats Portugal as a place full of incapable, careless incompetents," complained Francisco Moita Flores in Correio da Manha after a recent round of criticism of the Portuguese police.
Frustration reigns among journalists covering the case. Everybody who knows anything worthwhile is bound by Portugal's judicial secrecy laws not to talk. That includes the police, lawyers, court officials, the McCanns and almost anyone who has given evidence. That has not, of course, prevented the media providing a daily feast of "details". So where do these come from?
Kate and Gerry McCann might not be able to talk, but their extended family and a network of friends can, and do. Philomena, with her colourful Glaswegian vocabulary and willingness to attack the police, is among the most quoted - but there are many more.
The Portuguese police also talk, though the few gruff words issued by official spokesman Chief Inspector Olegario de Sousa rarely add anything to the story. Like any police force, however, they leak - especially to Portuguese journalists. Unfortunately the things they leak are often contradictory. For every "police source" claiming the evidence against the McCanns is strong, for example, another is ready to say it is not.
The McCanns have their own favourite journalists. Gerry McCann, for example, likes Sky's Ian Woods - who conducted the first television interview with them back in May. It was Sky who told the world the McCanns were leaving Portugal on September 9.
Although many commentators have professed amazement at the McCanns' supposedly skilful media management, this has, at times, proved chaotic. It was naive, for example, to believe that the respect showed to them in the days immediately after three-year-old Madeleine vanished would hold.
Muck-raking stories
In the early days the McCanns were allowed to set the rules for the press. They decided what happened, and when. The British media succumbed, largely, to a bout of communal sympathy. Police had said it was a kidnap. Robert Murat, an expatriate Briton, had been declared a formal suspect. He, as the McCanns do now, denied any involvement. That did not stop, however, pages and pages of muck-raking stories about him from appearing in newspapers in both Portugal and the UK.
The McCanns' early success with the press can be put down, in part, to the media experts they found working alongside them. The Mark Warner company, whose holiday apartments they had been staying in, already had a deal with PR company Bell Pottinger. That meant that Alex Woolfall, the company's crisis management head, was in Praia da Luz the day after Madeleine disappeared. When Woolfall left 10 days later, the Foreign Office stepped in. Media handlers arrived from London. They included former Daily Mirror journalist Sheree Dodd and, later, former BBC man Clarence Mitchell. Both Woolfall and Mitchell are remembered by reporters as key and immensely helpful sources as the McCann phenomenon took off.
After they left, however, things started going wrong. Portuguese newspapers started to publish unsympathetic stories at the end of June. As Portuguese journalists caught the mood music from police the relationship disintegrated further. Sandra Felgueiras, a feisty state television journalist obsessed by the family's supposed use of Calpol, became a particular bete noire.
Some Portuguese commentators are aware that their press, like some of their British counterparts, have gone too far. "The crowd now wants the parents to be the murderers because they are British (and, therefore, not Portuguese) and so that the worst of the British press has to surrender to the worst of the Portuguese press and admit that the latter were right," commented Mario Negreiros in Portugal's Jornal de Negocios.
Justine McGuinness, the campaign manager who took over after Mitchell left, stood down from the job last week; she is understood to have been exhausted by the intensity of the campaign. The McCanns have talked to, among others, former News of the World and Hello! editor Phil Hall about their future media needs, but seem to be finding it hard to hire a permanent replacement. Hanover PR, run by John Major's former press secretary Charles Lewington, was taking calls over the weekend, but stressed it was not working for the McCanns permanently.
It is hard to overestimate the global reach of the McCann story. The Associated Press, which rivals Reuters as the world's biggest global news agency, took reporters away from a meeting of European Union foreign ministers in northern Portugal to cover the McCanns' sudden change of fortune at Portimao police station. The decision paid off. The AP story was the most-read story on many US newspaper websites that day.
The strain on journalists in the Algarve has been immense. Working days have stretched for up to 18 hours or more. The McCann story has provided the British print media with the same test of modern, 24-hour, seven-day web-driven journalism as Virginia Tech gave their US counterparts.
Editors at newspaper websites realised back in May that McCann stories quickly shot to the top of their "most read" rankings. The best summary of the McCanns' current situation came from a Portuguese commentator, Joao Marques dos Santos of Correio da Manha. "The theory of the presumption of innocence for an arguido is a joke. When someone is declared an arguido, the exact opposite occurs. That person, whether innocent or not, is considered by investigators to be potentially guilty. The effects are devastating and irreparable."
The media, said McCann lawyer Pinto de Abreu, may be doing even more damage than that. "The media coverage could prejudice not just people's reputations but also the investigation itself," he told journalists last week.
So what difference does the rest of the article add to our knowledge with regard to de Abreu's statement and Tremlett's ignorance with regard to context ?
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: Alfred R Jones on June 12, 2015, 11:36:26 PM
How on earth does Amanda Knox defend herself on this charge? It is her word against the word of the police, how can she hope to prove that they did coerce her? This court case is a disgrace and the police should not be allowed to sue for slander, else no one would ever dare call them to account for anything that takes place behind closed doors in a cell or interview room.
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: Brietta on June 12, 2015, 11:43:52 PM
With prejudice Unofficial sources and the demands of 24-hour news have led to a media storm around Gerry and Kate McCann that gets darker by the day Giles Tremlett Monday 17 September 2007 08.02 BST
Inside the drab, tile-clad police station in Portimao, there is a television tuned to Sky News. Officers are monitoring the UK news network, which has mounted rolling coverage of the case they are investigating, for one reason: they want to know what the world is saying about them.
That explains the outrage 10 days ago, on the evening that Gerry and Kate McCann were declared formal suspects, or arguidos, in the disappearance of their daughter. Police were still questioning Gerry McCann when, already, his sister Philomena was telling Sky they had offered Kate McCann a reduced two-year sentence if she admitted to killing her daughter accidentally, hiding the body and then secretly disposing of it weeks later.
On this occasion the police officers were right to be angry. Like many things said about the McCann affair over the past days and months, the story was wrong. There was no offer of a plea bargain. It had all been "a misunderstanding", the McCann lawyer, Carlos Pinto de Abreu, explained the following day.
That did not mean, of course, that Philomena McCann - one of many people speaking for what might broadly be called "the McCann camp" - was wrong about the rest of it. Portuguese police do seem to be considering accidental death followed by disposal of the corpse as a possibility in this most bizarre of cases. In this story without on-the-record sources, however, they have not even publicly confirmed that much.
It now seems incredible, however, to recall that the McCanns started suing Portugal's Tal & Qual magazine for saying just that a little over two weeks ago: Philomena McCann's statement gave British journalists the green light to start reporting the allegations against the McCanns - even though, if they are found not guilty in any future trial, editors could be sued.
The scene inside the police station helps explain something of the nature of what has become one of the world's biggest media storms. The journalists watch the police, the police watch the journalists and the world watches them all - showing an insatiable appetite for even the flimsiest reports about the McCann case.
Stir into the mix the relentless demands of 24-hour rolling journalism and some bitter, nationalistic warfare between sections of the British and Portuguese press and you get a messy, and occasionally nasty, story.
"The British press ... treats Portugal as a place full of incapable, careless incompetents," complained Francisco Moita Flores in Correio da Manha after a recent round of criticism of the Portuguese police.
Frustration reigns among journalists covering the case. Everybody who knows anything worthwhile is bound by Portugal's judicial secrecy laws not to talk. That includes the police, lawyers, court officials, the McCanns and almost anyone who has given evidence. That has not, of course, prevented the media providing a daily feast of "details". So where do these come from?
Kate and Gerry McCann might not be able to talk, but their extended family and a network of friends can, and do. Philomena, with her colourful Glaswegian vocabulary and willingness to attack the police, is among the most quoted - but there are many more.
The Portuguese police also talk, though the few gruff words issued by official spokesman Chief Inspector Olegario de Sousa rarely add anything to the story. Like any police force, however, they leak - especially to Portuguese journalists. Unfortunately the things they leak are often contradictory. For every "police source" claiming the evidence against the McCanns is strong, for example, another is ready to say it is not.
The McCanns have their own favourite journalists. Gerry McCann, for example, likes Sky's Ian Woods - who conducted the first television interview with them back in May. It was Sky who told the world the McCanns were leaving Portugal on September 9.
Although many commentators have professed amazement at the McCanns' supposedly skilful media management, this has, at times, proved chaotic. It was naive, for example, to believe that the respect showed to them in the days immediately after three-year-old Madeleine vanished would hold.
Muck-raking stories
In the early days the McCanns were allowed to set the rules for the press. They decided what happened, and when. The British media succumbed, largely, to a bout of communal sympathy. Police had said it was a kidnap. Robert Murat, an expatriate Briton, had been declared a formal suspect. He, as the McCanns do now, denied any involvement. That did not stop, however, pages and pages of muck-raking stories about him from appearing in newspapers in both Portugal and the UK.
The McCanns' early success with the press can be put down, in part, to the media experts they found working alongside them. The Mark Warner company, whose holiday apartments they had been staying in, already had a deal with PR company Bell Pottinger. That meant that Alex Woolfall, the company's crisis management head, was in Praia da Luz the day after Madeleine disappeared. When Woolfall left 10 days later, the Foreign Office stepped in. Media handlers arrived from London. They included former Daily Mirror journalist Sheree Dodd and, later, former BBC man Clarence Mitchell. Both Woolfall and Mitchell are remembered by reporters as key and immensely helpful sources as the McCann phenomenon took off.
After they left, however, things started going wrong. Portuguese newspapers started to publish unsympathetic stories at the end of June. As Portuguese journalists caught the mood music from police the relationship disintegrated further. Sandra Felgueiras, a feisty state television journalist obsessed by the family's supposed use of Calpol, became a particular bete noire.
Some Portuguese commentators are aware that their press, like some of their British counterparts, have gone too far. "The crowd now wants the parents to be the murderers because they are British (and, therefore, not Portuguese) and so that the worst of the British press has to surrender to the worst of the Portuguese press and admit that the latter were right," commented Mario Negreiros in Portugal's Jornal de Negocios.
Justine McGuinness, the campaign manager who took over after Mitchell left, stood down from the job last week; she is understood to have been exhausted by the intensity of the campaign. The McCanns have talked to, among others, former News of the World and Hello! editor Phil Hall about their future media needs, but seem to be finding it hard to hire a permanent replacement. Hanover PR, run by John Major's former press secretary Charles Lewington, was taking calls over the weekend, but stressed it was not working for the McCanns permanently.
It is hard to overestimate the global reach of the McCann story. The Associated Press, which rivals Reuters as the world's biggest global news agency, took reporters away from a meeting of European Union foreign ministers in northern Portugal to cover the McCanns' sudden change of fortune at Portimao police station. The decision paid off. The AP story was the most-read story on many US newspaper websites that day.
The strain on journalists in the Algarve has been immense. Working days have stretched for up to 18 hours or more. The McCann story has provided the British print media with the same test of modern, 24-hour, seven-day web-driven journalism as Virginia Tech gave their US counterparts.
Editors at newspaper websites realised back in May that McCann stories quickly shot to the top of their "most read" rankings. The best summary of the McCanns' current situation came from a Portuguese commentator, Joao Marques dos Santos of Correio da Manha. "The theory of the presumption of innocence for an arguido is a joke. When someone is declared an arguido, the exact opposite occurs. That person, whether innocent or not, is considered by investigators to be potentially guilty. The effects are devastating and irreparable."
The media, said McCann lawyer Pinto de Abreu, may be doing even more damage than that. "The media coverage could prejudice not just people's reputations but also the investigation itself," he told journalists last week.
Thanks for that, Ferryman.
The quote made by Joao Marques dos Santos of Correio da Manha reinforces my opinion that the McCanns were made arguidos with malice aforethought with it known exactly how it would be perceived.
There are those whose opinions have been formed taking the arguido status as their benchmark despite the fact there was neither charge or prosecution; but looking on the bright side ~ it did help to sell a lot of books.
**snip "The theory of the presumption of innocence for an arguido is a joke. When someone is declared an arguido, the exact opposite occurs. That person, whether innocent or not, is considered by investigators to be potentially guilty. The effects are devastating and irreparable."
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: ferryman on June 12, 2015, 11:57:23 PM
Remove it you wish!
But here is the low-down on plea-bargain (as it relates to the McCanns) ....
John Blacksmith writes: Before returning to the exoneration question we need to spend more time on the critical meetings between the police, parents and their lawyer on the night of September 6 2007. Twenty four hours later Gerry McCann outlined a plan for he, his wife and their their children to flee across the border by car. What had happened? Carlos Pinto de Abreu
Carlos Pinto de Abreu. He knows.
Something doesn't add up
Many readers have been puzzled by pages 240 – 245 of Kate's book which describe the meeting with their lawyer, Carlos Pinto de Abreu, and the police interviews which preceded it. Some have said that they can't make any sense of the meeting, others that there is something strange or "wrong" about the section. To sum up, the lawyer's supposed words and the McCanns' actions and emotions don't seem to match up.
The Bureau suggested that Gerry McCann had "wanted" to confess and that he changed his mind and argued instead that they should tough it out hoping that the evidence against them was too weak to gain a conviction. That is the only interpretation that appears to make sense of what we know; as a Lisbon judge might say, however, it is only an interpretation.
Deal or no deal?
But first of all, what, in essence is Kate McCann's claim? It was expressed by Philomena McCann when she contacted the news media under instructions from Kate McCann on September 7.
"They tried to get her to confess to having accidentally killed Madeleine by offering her a deal through her lawyer - 'if you say you killed Madeleine by accident and then hid her and disposed of the body, then we can guarantee you a two-year jail sentence or even less,'"
This was no vague media report: as Kate McCann describes on page 246 of her book she and her husband were on the phone for around two hours that morning "calling family and friends to make them aware of the situation and to give them the green light to voice their outrage and despair if they wanted to. Nobody needed a second invitation". Philomena McCann gave the same version to all the major news media.
And the official police version? They stated publicly and categorically that it was untrue: the Portuguese police do not make deals. There is a clear conflict therefore – once again – between the police version of events and the claims of the McCanns. Either the police version is untrue or that of the McCanns is untrue and there is no possibility of reconciling them. For those who believe the McCanns were the victims of a police conspiracy throughout the affair that is no problem; for the rest of us the claim needs to be looked at carefully.
The missing evening
According to Kate McCann's book she went into her police interview at 2.55 PM on September 6. Apart from a fifteen minute break at 5 PM the questioning went on until 7.50 that evening in an atmosphere that was "quite amenable". There was a break, following which, she writes, her lawyer "disappeared into a meeting" with several of the PJ officers, leaving her feeling "upset and frustrated". As you would if your lawyer had gone off without instructions or any warning and left you for over two hours. If.
"At last," says Kate McCann, "Carlos re-appeared." The time, therefore, would be just after ten. She then adds that the questioning finally finished as 12.40. What happened during those two and a half hours? Kate McCann has nothing whatever to say except for one ten second snippet – that in the corridor outside a room one of the officers, Paolo Ferreira, told her that she should listen very carefully to what her lawyer had to say since it was very important.
According to the police records of her statement:
"At this moment, and because it is late, 11 p.m., the interview was interrupted and will be continued the next morning. She says nothing further. Reads, confirms, ratifies and signs, as do the interpreter and the defence lawyer." Significantly,perhaps, the questioning had ended at this point:
"At 10 p.m. she got up from the table, as it was her turn after having been replaced by Matt. She entered the apartment by the balcony door which was closed, but as already said, not locked."
It should be clear by now that Kate McCann has deliberately made no attempt to describe what actually happened on that critical evening, in stark contrast to her descriptions of the August 8 interview, which cover pages 212 to 214 of her book. There is no description of the attitude or demeanour of the police so graphically described in the August 8 pages, almost none about her state of mind, almost nothing about her discussions with her lawyer; the only time she quotes a police officer – out of many hours of questioning – is the Ferreira comment above which just happens to fit in with her "deal" claim and which just happens to have taken place in a corridor away from the stenographers and witnesses. Kate McCann and Carlos Pinto de Abreu
He won't testify. But he talks.
Crunch time
And so we come to the discussions in the villa later that night. To make any sense at all of Kate McCann's description the reader has to bear in mind that both the lawyer, who has a record of this discussion, and a second witness, his assistant, were present, thus putting certain constraints on what she can claim Abreu said. This is the reason for the apparent senselessness that so many readers have noticed in the section, as though the records of two different conversations have been mixed up. The chronology is quite unclear and the reader has to study the text very closely indeed to know just when Kate McCann is addressing Abreu (rarely) and when she is talking rhetorically and melodramatically to the reader.
First, Abreu's description of what the police had said, as mediated by Kate McCann in the book. Does it match what Kate McCann claims?
It does not. Here is Philomena with the authorised version again:
"They tried to get her to confess to having accidentally killed Madeleine by offering her a deal through her lawyer - 'if you say you killed Madeleine by accident and then hid her and disposed of the body, then we can guarantee you a two-year jail sentence or even less." [my italics]
We do not have a similar public record of what her lawyer actually said in quotes; we have Kate McCann's paraphrase of what he said:
If Kate McCann admitted that Madeleine had died in an accident in the apartment and If she confessed to having hidden and disposed of her body then The sentence she would receive would be much more lenient than if she was "charged" [sic] with homicide. Well yes, it would be wouldn't it, for Christ's sake? What else could it be?
Nowhere does she quote Abreu – who as I say has a record of the conversation – as saying what Kate McCann claimed via her relative on September 7, "if you say you killed Madeleine by accident". That is an invention by Kate McCann passed on to Philomena McCann to be given to the media.
Nowhere does she quote Abreu as saying that the police said "then we can guarantee you a two-year jail sentence or even less." That is an invention by Kate McCann passed on to Philomena McCann to be given to the media.
And that's it. Kate McCann, four years later and now having to give a description of the "proposal" for the first time, has completely withdrawn her initial claims (in italics above). But without those claims what she describes is not a deal! It is a statement of fact. There is no carrot and stick: no reward is being offered to her on the one hand and no threat is being made on the other.
A pity it took four years for it to come out.
How dare they!
Following her lawyer's factual statement Kate McCann then goes off into transports of shock and indignation, how dare they, this tactic isn't going to work with me, blah, blah. Trouble is, there is no record that she actually said this to Abreu – who, I repeat, has a record of the conversation – rather than to the pages of Madeleine four years later.
And try as she might to take the couple of sentences she claims to be quoting from Abreu out of context and chronology to maintain the fiction of a proffered deal,with her earlier claims deleted they now make no sense. "You need to think about it," Abreu says at one point, though Kate McCann uses the word "insisted". Think about what? Since no deal has been offered he cannot be talking of acceptance of a deal. And, "it would be only one of you. Gerry could go back to work". Yes, he could. So what?
There is no point in going through the rest of this lamentable chapter to see the various ways in which Kate McCann has endeavoured to complete the impossible task of quoting Abreu more or less accurately when the original claims which justified it being called a deal have been deleted. The reader merely has to check. Her ringing peroration, "do you want me to lie? What would you do, Carlos?" again makes no sense with the revised wording: the police haven't asked her to lie, her lawyer hasn't brought her a message asking her to lie. And nor does Gerry's tearful collapse and cries of "we're finished, our life is over" immediately following her description of the harmless non-proposal make any sense.
But of course it wasn't a reaction to a non-existent, gun to the head deal, was it? Because a page earlier, before the "deal" was mentioned, Kate McCann was writing, "I could see by this time that Gerry was beginning to crack". So what was it that made him first "crack" and then, eventually, collapse?
He began to crack, according to his wife, as his lawyer finished outlining the apparent strength of the case against them, given on the same page. That certainly does make sense and so does his eventual recovery from despair after he's thought the evidence through, recovered himself and made the judgement that, despite what his lawyer had told him, there was a good chance that if they hung on and admitted nothing the evidence might not be strong enough to convict either of them of anything.
Which is exactly what they did.
Doing what you know
In conclusion the reader may note what happened next, after they took the decision not to confess and Gerry asked their lawyer "whether he was up to the job" of defending them on the new basis.
On a previous occasion, the McCanns, having made up their mind about events, made desperate phone calls in the middle of the night seeking assistance from those they thought might help them, followed by calls to friends and family asking them to contact the media with their version of events ahead of that of the police.
That was on the night of May 3 and the morning of May 4 2007.
On the night of September 6 and the morning of September 7, Gerry McCann rang the British police officer Bob Small and desperately sought his help, after which both parents made calls to friends and family asking them to contact the media with their version of events ahead of that of the police.
Enough said. The evidence shows – and Abreu knows – that no deal was ever offered.
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: ferryman on June 13, 2015, 12:35:12 AM
John Blacksmith writes: Before returning to the exoneration question we need to spend more time on the critical meetings between the police, parents and their lawyer on the night of September 6 2007. Twenty four hours later Gerry McCann outlined a plan for he, his wife and their their children to flee across the border by car. What had happened? Carlos Pinto de Abreu
Carlos Pinto de Abreu. He knows.
Something doesn't add up
Many readers have been puzzled by pages 240 – 245 of Kate's book which describe the meeting with their lawyer, Carlos Pinto de Abreu, and the police interviews which preceded it. Some have said that they can't make any sense of the meeting, others that there is something strange or "wrong" about the section. To sum up, the lawyer's supposed words and the McCanns' actions and emotions don't seem to match up.
The Bureau suggested that Gerry McCann had "wanted" to confess and that he changed his mind and argued instead that they should tough it out hoping that the evidence against them was too weak to gain a conviction. That is the only interpretation that appears to make sense of what we know; as a Lisbon judge might say, however, it is only an interpretation.
Deal or no deal?
But first of all, what, in essence is Kate McCann's claim? It was expressed by Philomena McCann when she contacted the news media under instructions from Kate McCann on September 7.
"They tried to get her to confess to having accidentally killed Madeleine by offering her a deal through her lawyer - 'if you say you killed Madeleine by accident and then hid her and disposed of the body, then we can guarantee you a two-year jail sentence or even less,'"
This was no vague media report: as Kate McCann describes on page 246 of her book she and her husband were on the phone for around two hours that morning "calling family and friends to make them aware of the situation and to give them the green light to voice their outrage and despair if they wanted to. Nobody needed a second invitation". Philomena McCann gave the same version to all the major news media.
And the official police version? They stated publicly and categorically that it was untrue: the Portuguese police do not make deals. There is a clear conflict therefore – once again – between the police version of events and the claims of the McCanns. Either the police version is untrue or that of the McCanns is untrue and there is no possibility of reconciling them. For those who believe the McCanns were the victims of a police conspiracy throughout the affair that is no problem; for the rest of us the claim needs to be looked at carefully.
The missing evening
According to Kate McCann's book she went into her police interview at 2.55 PM on September 6. Apart from a fifteen minute break at 5 PM the questioning went on until 7.50 that evening in an atmosphere that was "quite amenable". There was a break, following which, she writes, her lawyer "disappeared into a meeting" with several of the PJ officers, leaving her feeling "upset and frustrated". As you would if your lawyer had gone off without instructions or any warning and left you for over two hours. If.
"At last," says Kate McCann, "Carlos re-appeared." The time, therefore, would be just after ten. She then adds that the questioning finally finished as 12.40. What happened during those two and a half hours? Kate McCann has nothing whatever to say except for one ten second snippet – that in the corridor outside a room one of the officers, Paolo Ferreira, told her that she should listen very carefully to what her lawyer had to say since it was very important.
According to the police records of her statement:
"At this moment, and because it is late, 11 p.m., the interview was interrupted and will be continued the next morning. She says nothing further. Reads, confirms, ratifies and signs, as do the interpreter and the defence lawyer." Significantly,perhaps, the questioning had ended at this point:
"At 10 p.m. she got up from the table, as it was her turn after having been replaced by Matt. She entered the apartment by the balcony door which was closed, but as already said, not locked."
It should be clear by now that Kate McCann has deliberately made no attempt to describe what actually happened on that critical evening, in stark contrast to her descriptions of the August 8 interview, which cover pages 212 to 214 of her book. There is no description of the attitude or demeanour of the police so graphically described in the August 8 pages, almost none about her state of mind, almost nothing about her discussions with her lawyer; the only time she quotes a police officer – out of many hours of questioning – is the Ferreira comment above which just happens to fit in with her "deal" claim and which just happens to have taken place in a corridor away from the stenographers and witnesses. Kate McCann and Carlos Pinto de Abreu
He won't testify. But he talks.
Crunch time
And so we come to the discussions in the villa later that night. To make any sense at all of Kate McCann's description the reader has to bear in mind that both the lawyer, who has a record of this discussion, and a second witness, his assistant, were present, thus putting certain constraints on what she can claim Abreu said. This is the reason for the apparent senselessness that so many readers have noticed in the section, as though the records of two different conversations have been mixed up. The chronology is quite unclear and the reader has to study the text very closely indeed to know just when Kate McCann is addressing Abreu (rarely) and when she is talking rhetorically and melodramatically to the reader.
First, Abreu's description of what the police had said, as mediated by Kate McCann in the book. Does it match what Kate McCann claims?
It does not. Here is Philomena with the authorised version again:
"They tried to get her to confess to having accidentally killed Madeleine by offering her a deal through her lawyer - 'if you say you killed Madeleine by accident and then hid her and disposed of the body, then we can guarantee you a two-year jail sentence or even less." [my italics]
We do not have a similar public record of what her lawyer actually said in quotes; we have Kate McCann's paraphrase of what he said:
If Kate McCann admitted that Madeleine had died in an accident in the apartment and If she confessed to having hidden and disposed of her body then The sentence she would receive would be much more lenient than if she was "charged" [sic] with homicide. Well yes, it would be wouldn't it, for Christ's sake? What else could it be?
Nowhere does she quote Abreu – who as I say has a record of the conversation – as saying what Kate McCann claimed via her relative on September 7, "if you say you killed Madeleine by accident". That is an invention by Kate McCann passed on to Philomena McCann to be given to the media.
Nowhere does she quote Abreu as saying that the police said "then we can guarantee you a two-year jail sentence or even less." That is an invention by Kate McCann passed on to Philomena McCann to be given to the media.
And that's it. Kate McCann, four years later and now having to give a description of the "proposal" for the first time, has completely withdrawn her initial claims (in italics above). But without those claims what she describes is not a deal! It is a statement of fact. There is no carrot and stick: no reward is being offered to her on the one hand and no threat is being made on the other.
A pity it took four years for it to come out.
How dare they!
Following her lawyer's factual statement Kate McCann then goes off into transports of shock and indignation, how dare they, this tactic isn't going to work with me, blah, blah. Trouble is, there is no record that she actually said this to Abreu – who, I repeat, has a record of the conversation – rather than to the pages of Madeleine four years later.
And try as she might to take the couple of sentences she claims to be quoting from Abreu out of context and chronology to maintain the fiction of a proffered deal,with her earlier claims deleted they now make no sense. "You need to think about it," Abreu says at one point, though Kate McCann uses the word "insisted". Think about what? Since no deal has been offered he cannot be talking of acceptance of a deal. And, "it would be only one of you. Gerry could go back to work". Yes, he could. So what?
There is no point in going through the rest of this lamentable chapter to see the various ways in which Kate McCann has endeavoured to complete the impossible task of quoting Abreu more or less accurately when the original claims which justified it being called a deal have been deleted. The reader merely has to check. Her ringing peroration, "do you want me to lie? What would you do, Carlos?" again makes no sense with the revised wording: the police haven't asked her to lie, her lawyer hasn't brought her a message asking her to lie. And nor does Gerry's tearful collapse and cries of "we're finished, our life is over" immediately following her description of the harmless non-proposal make any sense.
But of course it wasn't a reaction to a non-existent, gun to the head deal, was it? Because a page earlier, before the "deal" was mentioned, Kate McCann was writing, "I could see by this time that Gerry was beginning to crack". So what was it that made him first "crack" and then, eventually, collapse?
He began to crack, according to his wife, as his lawyer finished outlining the apparent strength of the case against them, given on the same page. That certainly does make sense and so does his eventual recovery from despair after he's thought the evidence through, recovered himself and made the judgement that, despite what his lawyer had told him, there was a good chance that if they hung on and admitted nothing the evidence might not be strong enough to convict either of them of anything.
Which is exactly what they did.
Doing what you know
In conclusion the reader may note what happened next, after they took the decision not to confess and Gerry asked their lawyer "whether he was up to the job" of defending them on the new basis.
On a previous occasion, the McCanns, having made up their mind about events, made desperate phone calls in the middle of the night seeking assistance from those they thought might help them, followed by calls to friends and family asking them to contact the media with their version of events ahead of that of the police.
That was on the night of May 3 and the morning of May 4 2007.
On the night of September 6 and the morning of September 7, Gerry McCann rang the British police officer Bob Small and desperately sought his help, after which both parents made calls to friends and family asking them to contact the media with their version of events ahead of that of the police.
Enough said. The evidence shows – and Abreu knows – that no deal was ever offered.
There can be no dispute that Mark Harrison was tasked -- by the PJ -- to consider that Madeleine had been murdered.
His report says so.
Why is that, do you suppose?
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: faithlilly on June 13, 2015, 12:59:29 AM
Who discovered they could be opened from outside before he told friends and family they had been jemmied or broken, so that still doesn't explain why they said it.
Absolutely brilliant move from the master criminal. Lowers the blind to 'prove ' it can be raised from outside then leaves it down?? Says it has been 'jemmied' then leaves it unjemmied. Classic!
Neither Dr Kate McCann or Dr Gerry McCann claimed the window had been 'jemmied' ... just as there were no ' six dead bodies' there was no jemmied shutter.
You really are dredging the bottom of the barrel.
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: ferryman on June 13, 2015, 08:27:55 AM
How on earth does Amanda Knox defend herself on this charge? It is her word against the word of the police, how can she hope to prove that they did coerce her? This court case is a disgrace and the police should not be allowed to sue for slander, else no one would ever dare call them to account for anything that takes place behind closed doors in a cell or interview room.
Agreed!
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: G-Unit on June 13, 2015, 09:04:01 AM
Absolutely brilliant move from the master criminal. Lowers the blind to 'prove ' it can be raised from outside then leaves it down?? Says it has been 'jemmied' then leaves it unjemmied. Classic!
Neither Dr Kate McCann or Dr Gerry McCann claimed the window had been 'jemmied' ... just as there were no ' six dead bodies' there was no jemmied shutter.
You really are dredging the bottom of the barrel.
Kate and Gerry McCann told four separate people that the shutters had been jemmied, forced or broken. They didn't invent that, they were told that was what happened.
04 May 2007 BBC East Midlands Today
Trish Cameron: 'They last checked at half past nine; they were all sound asleep, sleeping; windows shut; shutters shut. Kate went back at ten o'clock to check; the front door was lying open; the window had been tampered with; the shutters had been jammied open... or whatever you call it, and Madeleine was missing.'
Kate and Gerry McCann told four separate people that the shutters had been jemmied, forced or broken. They didn't invent that, they were told that was what happened.
04 May 2007 BBC East Midlands Today
Trish Cameron: 'They last checked at half past nine; they were all sound asleep, sleeping; windows shut; shutters shut. Kate went back at ten o'clock to check; the front door was lying open; the window had been tampered with; the shutters had been jammied open... or whatever you call it, and Madeleine was missing.'
Why don't you come up with something a bit more plausible to put the boot in ... plenty to choose from. We have blood spatter photographs proving the equivalent of a Texas chain saw massacre took place ... don't know if that was before Madeleine fell from the top of the stairs to the bottom ... take your pick.
Everybody seems to be steering clear of the coffin invasion latest wheeze ... don't really know why ... it is as plausible as any of the others.
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: Montclair on June 13, 2015, 10:04:18 AM
How on earth does Amanda Knox defend herself on this charge? It is her word against the word of the police, how can she hope to prove that they did coerce her? This court case is a disgrace and the police should not be allowed to sue for slander, else no one would ever dare call them to account for anything that takes place behind closed doors in a cell or interview room.
The police already sued Amanda Knox for slander, she was convicted and served her time. This conviction was confirmed when she was "acquitted" of murder.
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: faithlilly on June 13, 2015, 10:37:31 AM
This report considers solely the possibility that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body is concealed within the areas previously searched by Police in Zone 1 around Praia Da Luz. Other scenarios or possibilities may on request be considered and be subject of a further report.
(Mark Harrison)
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: faithlilly on June 13, 2015, 10:58:27 AM
In a police investigation all scenarios are looked.
This report considers solely the possibility that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body is concealed within the areas previously searched by Police in Zone 1 around Praia Da Luz. Other scenarios or possibilities may on request be considered and be subject of a further report.
This report considers solely the possibility that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body is concealed within the areas previously searched by Police in Zone 1 around Praia Da Luz. Other scenarios or possibilities may on request be considered and be subject of a further report.
So where does it say ferryman that the mccanns became arguida because of a 'murder investigation' ?
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: ferryman on June 13, 2015, 11:07:48 AM
From Goncalo Amaral's interview to El Mundo
Q - What do you think that could have happened that night?
A - Both the British and Portuguese police, and even the prosecutor, who has already changed his mind, thought the same. We talked about death by others, not murder. In the room blood and cadaver odour was found just below a window where a sofa was. The father was talking to a friend just outside that window for a while. The girl did not have a a heavy sleep, that's what the parents said. Perhaps she heard her father and climbed to the sofa bellow the window. But the parents, for the girl not to go out,moved it away from the wall. Madeleine could have fallen.
Why did Amaral lie?
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: mercury on June 13, 2015, 10:47:39 PM
Read Mark Harrison's reports. He was tasked to investigate that Madeline had been murdered, and did so.
So? whats unusual about that? Its the first thing british people do all the time
As to your future to this post, that the mccanns were made arguidos in a murder enquiry, you're making a patchwork quilt there to suit... not even amaral has accused them of murder
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 14, 2015, 12:26:53 AM
This report considers solely the possibility that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body is concealed within the areas previously searched by Police in Zone 1 around Praia Da Luz. Other scenarios or possibilities may on request be considered and be subject of a further report.
Murder is a possibility. This report was produced before the dogs examined the apartment. If the child was abducted she could have been taken and murdered. There's nothing strange in that report.
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: mercury on June 14, 2015, 12:36:26 AM
Murder is a possibility. This report was produced before the dogs examined the apartment. If the child was abducted she could have been taken and murdered. There's nothing strange in that report.
you said it muchbetter than me, thats what I was tryng to convey
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: ferryman on June 14, 2015, 05:58:28 AM
Murder is a possibility. This report was produced before the dogs examined the apartment. If the child was abducted she could have been taken and murdered. There's nothing strange in that report.
I'm unsurprised you've not assimilated the fact that dog reactions are irrelevant to the investigation; still less surprised that you have ignored Harrison's post dog deployment comments.
During the searches two Police dogs were deployed and although it has been stated that no physical remains were located in the area these dogs did give indications in several areas. These areas have been subject to a separate forensic examination that is beyond the scope of this report and at the time of writing laboratory tests are being undertaken. The dogs’ handler has submitted a separate report regarding the performance of the dogs (see appendix 4). However, it must be stated any such indications without any physical evidence to support them can not have any evidential value, being unconfirmed indications. Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.
(Mark Harrison)
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: stephen25000 on June 14, 2015, 08:18:06 AM
I'm unsurprised you've not assimilated the fact that dog reactions are irrelevant to the investigation; still less surprised that you have ignored Harrison's post dog deployment comments.
During the searches two Police dogs were deployed and although it has been stated that no physical remains were located in the area these dogs did give indications in several areas. These areas have been subject to a separate forensic examination that is beyond the scope of this report and at the time of writing laboratory tests are being undertaken. The dogs’ handler has submitted a separate report regarding the performance of the dogs (see appendix 4). However, it must be stated any such indications without any physical evidence to support them can not have any evidential value, being unconfirmed indications. Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.
(Mark Harrison)
Unconfirmed does not mean the dogs didn't indiicate to a body.
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: Benice on June 14, 2015, 08:48:27 AM
Unconfirmed does not mean the dogs didn't indiicate to a body.
But it does scupper the popular belief of some sceptics i.e. - that if Eddie alerted - then that is indisputable proof that a cadaver must have been at that location. Agreed?
Quote Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 14, 2015, 09:27:53 AM
But it does scupper the popular belief of some sceptics i.e. - that if Eddie alerted - then that is indisputable proof that a cadaver must have been at that location. Agreed?
Quote Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.
Eddie's alert got Prout and many others. Police don't ignore his alerts or you are living in fantasyland.
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: Benice on June 14, 2015, 10:34:02 AM
Eddie's alert got Prout and many others. Police don't ignore his alerts or you are living in fantasyland.
You have missed the point.
What has that got to do with the fact that because Eddie alerts it does not automatically prove that a cadaver was present at that location or ever had been present - which is what some sceptics strongly believe.
I am not disputing that Eddie alerted to cadaverscent. It is the sceptics reason why that scent was present which I am disputing - based on the expert opinion of both Grime and Harrison.
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 14, 2015, 10:45:39 AM
What has that got to do with the fact that because Eddie alerts it does not automatically prove that a cadaver was present at that location or ever had been present - which is what some sceptics strongly believe.
I am not disputing that Eddie alerted to cadaverscent. It is the sceptics reason why that scent was present which I am disputing - based on the expert opinion of both Grime and Harrison.
After eliminating other possibilities the police work on the belief that a cadaver was present. That's why their digging in Luz for the evidence of it.
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: Carana on June 14, 2015, 10:59:38 AM
Back to Faith's OP:
If only the Portuguese had taken this course of action when Kate McCann claimed she had been offered a deal by them.
I would imagine that what she means is it would have been some comfort for Faith to know that Kate had faced some sort of legal action, if only for the act of slander against the police. People like Faith want the McCanns to pay in some way, but they know they are unlikely to ever be going to jail for that which they suspect them of, so they root around for other things that they think they could be charged with. What a sad pastime!
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: ferryman on June 14, 2015, 12:16:55 PM
Eddie's alert was excluded from the Prout trial, because it was unconfirmed.
It was, to quote Mark Harrison, an 'unconfirmed indication'. I'm sure the indication was noted and that it encouraged officers to search harder for the body. I very much doubt if it was dismissed as of no consequence. Of course he was proved correct in the end.
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 14, 2015, 02:45:51 PM
Eddie's alert was excluded from the Prout trial, because it was unconfirmed.
It confirmed to the police who was involved so he now became the focus of the investigation.
Title: Re: If Only....!
Post by: ferryman on June 14, 2015, 02:57:28 PM
My speakers don't work, so I can't comment on your video.
Howeve r, I do know a bit about the Prout investigation.
At his trial, the dog alert was excluded because there was no forensic corroboration.
The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence such as that Kate Prout's bank accounts were untouched.
After the trial, it emerged that Eddie had alerted in the Prout home, a few hundred yards from the outhouse where Prout strangled, then buried, his wife.