Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: ferryman on October 11, 2015, 03:34:16 PM
Title: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: ferryman on October 11, 2015, 03:34:16 PM
I take this to be the most questionable passage from Dr Amaral's book
Quote
After a week of intense work, Harrison presents the results of his study to my coordinating group. Even if we were expecting it, his conclusions confirm our worst fears. The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz. He praises the quality of the work carried out by the Portuguese authorities in trying to find the little girl alive. According to him, the time has come to redirect the searches in order to find, this time, a body hidden in the surrounding area.
AMAZING STATISTICS
Great Britain has at its disposal the world's biggest data bank on homicide of children under five years old. Since 1960, the count is 1528. Harrison is well acquainted with its contents. He often draws information from there which helps him to resolve similar cases. Valuable information can be found there on on various criminal modus operandi, places where bodies are hidden, techniques used to get rid of a body. He relates that on one occasion, thanks to the data, he was able to deduce the maximum distance a body might be found in relation to where the crime had been committed.
The figures quoted in the report he hands over give us the shivers. The crimes, including those of a sexual nature, are committed by the parents in 84% of cases; 96% are perpetrated by friends and relatives. In only 4% of them is the murderer or abductor a total stranger to the victim. In this roundabout way, Mark Harrison points out that the guilty party may be a person close to Madeleine, and even her own parents. From now on, we have to explore this track, especially as the others have proved fruitless.
Here, from his report, is what Harrison actually said:
Quote
Sub Surface Burial on P D Luz Beach
For Body Disposal Purposes The Beach Can Be Separated And Discussed Into 6 Areas.
Figure 2.The boulders in the rock falls are too large to man handle. Vegetative growth suggests rock falls have been in situ for some time. The low energy wave action would not move any of the boulders. It is possible a small child could be secreted amongst the rocks in natural voids.
Figure 3.The cliff edge at the base of the beach is at an angle that inhibits soil removal. The shale re fills any hole dug and is unsuitable to achieve a burial.
Figure4.At the base of the cliff are wave cuts where the bedrock has been eroded by wave action. Here sand can be easily dug but after a few centimetres the digger reaches the bed rock, preventing a successful burial.
Figure 5.The beach cusps or berms are mounds of sand made by wind action. These cusps form at the limit of the tides reach and would only be recovered in storm conditions. Digging on the cusps is easy but to achieve as more than a few centimetres depth is very difficult to the fine sand granules refill the hole
Figure 6.The dark sand in this image shows the intertidal area. Here digging and burial could possibly be achieved although it would be through a mixture of grave1 and water. However any burial would be quickly exposed by wave action and ultimately taken into the sea.
Harrison explicitly ruled out burial.
The reference Harrison made to statistics is this:
Quote
I am currently of the opinion on the available information and statistical datasets that if death has occurred, that it is possible that Madeleine McCann’s body has been disposed into the sea at Praia da Luz. (See my second report entitled “NPIA OP TASK Search Doc Beach and Marine”).
And note the provisor: if death has occurred ...
So, Amaral has misrepresented Harrison as saying that Madeleine is definitely dead, that the statistics point to Madeleine being definitely dead, that her remains are buried somewhere in close proximity to PdL (when Harrison ruled out burial) and that her parents might well be responsible (when Harrison reached no, definitive, conclusion about what might have happened to Madeleine.)
Do Amaral's comments not verge on the libellous?
[Title and Post edited by Admin]
36
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Brietta on October 11, 2015, 06:07:38 PM
I take this to be the most questionable passage from Dr Amaral's book
Here, from his report, is what Harrison actually said:
Harrison explicitly ruled out burial.
The reference Harrison made to statistics is this:
And note the provisor: if death has occurred ...
So, Amaral has misrepresented Harrison as saying that Madeleine is definitely dead, that the statistics point to Madeleine being definitely dead, that her remains are buried somewhere in close proximity to PdL (when Harrison ruled out burial) and that her parents might well be responsible (when Harrison reached no, definitive, conclusion about what might have happened to Madeleine.)
Do Amaral's comments not verge on the libellous?
It would seem to be at the least a misrepresentation of the facts. If intentional, reprehensible indeed. If unintentional it surely raises question about the inability to interpret information of the person who was put in charge of a missing child investigation.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 11, 2015, 06:10:43 PM
I take this to be the most questionable passage from Dr Amaral's book
Here, from his report, is what Harrison actually said:
Harrison explicitly ruled out burial.
The reference Harrison made to statistics is this:
And note the provisor: if death has occurred ...
So, Amaral has misrepresented Harrison as saying that Madeleine is definitely dead, that the statistics point to Madeleine being definitely dead, that her remains are buried somewhere in close proximity to PdL (when Harrison ruled out burial) and that her parents might well be responsible (when Harrison reached no, definitive, conclusion about what might have happened to Madeleine.)
Do Amaral's comments not verge on the libellous?
There are only two possibilities.
Alive or Dead.
Given the time elapsed and not one trace of Madeleine, most probably dead.
Now ferryman, would you call that libel ?
Remembering of course Redwood said she was alive or dead.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 11, 2015, 06:54:18 PM
Given the time elapsed and not one trace of Madeleine, most probably dead.
Now ferryman, would you call that libel ?
Remembering of course Redwood said she was alive or dead.
I wouldn't call that libel.... I would call that a fair summary But that is not what amaral said Amaral claimed in his book that Maddie died in the apartment due to an accident and her parents covered things up
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: ferryman on October 11, 2015, 08:02:04 PM
This sentence:
... there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz.
Mark Harrison never said any such thing.
And this sentence.
In this roundabout way, Mark Harrison points out that the guilty party may be a person close to Madeleine, and even her own parents.
Mark Harrison never said any such thing.
How is misrepresenting what a senior investigator said to implicate the parents of a missing child in her disappearance other than libellous?
The penultimate sentence of Harrison's final report makes plain that Harrison drew no firm conclusions about what happened to Madeleine (even whether she was alive or dead, let alone who might have committed crime(s) against her.)
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: mercury on October 11, 2015, 08:11:27 PM
How about leaving it to the courts, the only place it matters really
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: ferryman on October 11, 2015, 08:12:36 PM
Didn't the courts rule in favour of the McCanns back in April?
and yet again, where did it say libel in the court documents ?
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: mercury on October 11, 2015, 08:18:17 PM
Marcos Correia, the controversial medium come lawyer involved in this case, was sued by Mr Amaral for libel IIRC , and he (MC) only won because he said he believed what he said was true not that it was
Edited as posted it the wrong way around
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: ferryman on October 11, 2015, 08:22:07 PM
If they did in libel then there's no point to this thread surely?
Why not?
Some people erroneously insist that the libel trial was a damages trial.
And the (developing) saga of the appeal is interesting, to say the least.
Just what are Amaral's grounds of appeal?
To be clear, defamation is falsehoods (in Portugal, proved) that lower reputation.
In the above extract we have a number of proved falsehoods that assuredly lower reputation, written by Amaral in his book, sold in vast numbers across countries of Europe.
There are many more examples.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: ferryman on October 11, 2015, 08:24:03 PM
Marcos Correia, the controversial medium come lawyer involved in this case, sued Mr Amaral for libel IIRC , and he only won because he said he believed what he said was true not that it was
The McCanns are able to disprove droves of what Amaral wrote in his book or said in interviews.
Frozen cadaver remains
We policemen, experts ....
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: mercury on October 11, 2015, 08:24:22 PM
Some people erroneously insist that the libel trial was a damages trial.
And the (developing) saga of the appeal is interesting, to say the least.
Just what are Amaral's grounds of appeal?
To be clear, defamation is falsehoods (in Portugal, proved) that lower reputation.
In the above extract we have a number of proved falsehoods that assuredly lower reputation, written by Amaral in his book, sold in vast numbers across countries of Europe.
There are many more examples.
Did my question go over your head or something? I SAID if the court found in the Mccanns favour in a lbel trial then what's the point of this thread? My post #8
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 11, 2015, 08:59:50 PM
... there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz.
Mark Harrison never said any such thing.
And this sentence.
In this roundabout way, Mark Harrison points out that the guilty party may be a person close to Madeleine, and even her own parents.
Mark Harrison never said any such thing.
How is misrepresenting what a senior investigator said to implicate the parents of a missing child in her disappearance other than libellous?
The penultimate sentence of Harrison's final report makes plain that Harrison drew no firm conclusions about what happened to Madeleine (even whether she was alive or dead, let alone who might have committed crime(s) against her.)
I read it as "The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz." Which is a bit different from that which you are posting. The best you will do, I think old son, is that Sr Amaral misquoted Mark Harrison.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: ferryman on October 11, 2015, 09:01:34 PM
I read it as "The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz." Which is a bit different from that which you are posting. The best you will do, I think old son, is that Sr Amaral misquoted Mark Harrison.
To project a message to people across countries of Europe that Mark Harrison declared Madeleine definitely dead ....
And her parents (conceivably) responsible ...
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: slartibartfast on October 11, 2015, 09:04:47 PM
Parroting yourself while sticking two fingers in ears will get you nowhere fast, you've done it before and failed
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: ferryman on October 11, 2015, 09:30:31 PM
Actually, there is a detail I missed, but scarcely one that helps Amaral.
Amaral said that Madeleine had been hidden on the beach, and when asked whether, by that, he meant buried, replied, we do not know.
That comes from Harrison's reference to large, immovable boulders where he says (sic) it would be possible to secrete the body of a small child.
That all ties in with a sequence Amaral relates in his book where he is called away from a meeting in the small hours by his distraught wife. She has found the body of their dog with head injuries and Amaral attempts to dig a hole to bury it, but finds the ground hard to dig.
And the inspiration hits Amaral how much "easier" it would be to hide, rather than bury, a body.
Perish the very suggestion that all might have had something to with Harrison's observation that it would be possible to conceal the body of a small child in large, free-standing rocks on the beach ....
Quote
Figure 2.The boulders in the rock falls are too large to man handle. Vegetative growth suggests rock falls have been in situ for some time. The low energy wave action would not move any of the boulders. It is possible a small child could be secreted amongst the rocks in natural voids.
(Mark Harrison)
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: slartibartfast on October 11, 2015, 09:37:31 PM
Actually, there is a detail I missed, but scarcely one that helps Amaral.
Amaral said that Madeleine had been hidden on the beach, and when asked whether, by that, he meant buried, replied, we do not know.
That comes from Harrison's reference to large, immovable boulders where he says (sic) it would be possible to secrete the body of a small child.
That all ties in with a sequence Amaral relates in his book where he is called away from a meeting in the small hours by his distraught wife. She has found the body of their dog with head injuries and Amaral attempts to dig a hole to bury it, but finds the ground hard to dig.
And the inspiration hits Amaral how much "easier" it would be to hide, rather than bury, a body.
Perish the very suggestion that all might have had something to with Harrison's observation that it would be possible to conceal the body of a small child in large, free-standing rocks on the beach ....
(Mark Harrison)
Confused, you now seem to be saying Amaral's theory was based on Harrison's report?
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: mercury on October 11, 2015, 09:37:48 PM
hiding to nowhere, shame, all that effort and energy for nothing!
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: G-Unit on October 11, 2015, 09:38:21 PM
Discussing what was said in the book is of no use as the judge didn't address that issue or rule on it. The issue, for her, was whether Amaral was entitled to express his opinion. She decided he was not, and awarded damages accordingly.
A first conclusion is that if the book is about an hypothetical checking of the facts or about the opinion of the author on how the evidence collected in the investigation should be read, one shouldn't speak of falsehood, untrue facts, and it doesn't make sense, without a better understanding, to discuss the "exceptio veritatis"
The means of obtaining evidence and the evidence referred to in the book are those of the criminal investigation and most of the facts that the book is concerned with (as well as those referred to in the documentary and interview), when related to the criminal investigation, are mostly facts that occurred or are documented in the investigation (n° 80 of the proved facts). In our view, the issue, in this trial, is the exercise of the right of opinion by the defendant in that context.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: ferryman on October 11, 2015, 09:38:51 PM
Discussing what was said in the book is of no use as the judge didn't address that issue or rule on it. The issue, for her, was whether Amaral was entitled to express his opinion. She decided he was not, and awarded damages accordingly.
A first conclusion is that if the book is about an hypothetical checking of the facts or about the opinion of the author on how the evidence collected in the investigation should be read, one shouldn't speak of falsehood, untrue facts, and it doesn't make sense, without a better understanding, to discuss the "exceptio veritatis"
The means of obtaining evidence and the evidence referred to in the book are those of the criminal investigation and most of the facts that the book is concerned with (as well as those referred to in the documentary and interview), when related to the criminal investigation, are mostly facts that occurred or are documented in the investigation (n° 80 of the proved facts). In our view, the issue, in this trial, is the exercise of the right of opinion by the defendant in that context.
I think you are confusing the injunction with the libel trial
The (final) ruling in the injunction was that Amaral was entitled to express his opinion.
The libel trial ruled on whether that opinion could be considered factual, or at any rate, was based on purported facts that had not been proven untrue.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: mercury on October 11, 2015, 09:54:24 PM
Harrison's abstract musings were the basis of Amaral's wild fantasies.
So now seasoned police officers /experts opinions are abstract musings...nice try...Mark Harrison was not a poet!!! Mr Amarals opinions likewise, of a seasoned police officer were not wild fantasies
You're off your rocker as they say...similar to lawyers who go for the extreme in the hope they get something after all
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: ferryman on October 11, 2015, 09:55:35 PM
So now seasoned police officers /experts opinions are abstract musings...nice try...Mark Harrison was not a poet!!! Mr Amarals opinions likewise, of a seasoned police officer were not wild fantasies
You're off your rocker as they say...similar to lawyers who go for the extreme in the hope they get something after all
Harrison's musings were abstract musings.
Amaral's misinterpretation of what Harrison said was just that ...
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: mercury on October 11, 2015, 09:59:37 PM
Amaral's misinterpretation of what Harrison said was just that ...
Ths whole forum has seen you try to make black seem white even when it's been shoved in your face that it isn't so I'm not arguing the toss with you again, it's thoroughly pointless, you carry on playing though, you will, of course, fail
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: ferryman on October 11, 2015, 10:04:21 PM
Actually, there is a detail I missed, but scarcely one that helps Amaral.
Amaral said that Madeleine had been hidden on the beach, and when asked whether, by that, he meant buried, replied, we do not know.
That comes from Harrison's reference to large, immovable boulders where he says (sic) it would be possible to secrete the body of a small child.
That all ties in with a sequence Amaral relates in his book where he is called away from a meeting in the small hours by his distraught wife. She has found the body of their dog with head injuries and Amaral attempts to dig a hole to bury it, but finds the ground hard to dig.
And the inspiration hits Amaral how much "easier" it would be to hide, rather than bury, a body.
Perish the very suggestion that all might have had something to with Harrison's observation that it would be possible to conceal the body of a small child in large, free-standing rocks on the beach ....
(Mark Harrison)
That is common sense that the nearby beach/sea would be an important area of interest to the police. Madeleine could have been taken there in the dark away from street lights/eye witnesses. Mark Harrison knew it and the Smiths reinforced that theory so I agree if you follow the evidence. The man they saw knows the answer and if he's innocent he can come forward to sue me if he dares. I'm sure SY would love that to happen after 8 years 8(0(* The prime suspect in the Madeleine McCann case finally comes out of hiding to sue Pathfinder @)(++(*
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Admin on October 12, 2015, 02:29:33 AM
I take this to be the most questionable passage from Dr Amaral's book
Quote
After a week of intense work, Harrison presents the results of his study to my coordinating group. Even if we were expecting it, his conclusions confirm our worst fears. The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz. He praises the quality of the work carried out by the Portuguese authorities in trying to find the little girl alive. According to him, the time has come to redirect the searches in order to find, this time, a body hidden in the surrounding area.
Amaral merely states what in his opinion was the most plausible scenario given the results received from Harrison. He does not state that his opinion and those expressed by Harrison are the same, in reality a somewhat subtle difference.
Harrison was too street savvy to make specific accusations in his Reports, however, Amaral felt he was not similiarly constrained by Portuguese law.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: ferryman on October 12, 2015, 05:35:17 AM
Amaral merely states what in his opinion was the most plausible scenario given the results received from Harrison. He does not state that his opinion and those expressed by Harrison are the same, in reality a somewhat subtle difference.
Harrison was too street savvy to make specific accusations in his Reports, however, Amaral felt he was not similiarly constrained by Portuguese law.
Which one?
Madeleine's concealed remains on the beach?
Madeleine driven dead to Huelva, Spain?
Or (more latterly) Madeleine's body slipped into the coffin of a dead woman just before cremation?
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: G-Unit on October 12, 2015, 08:56:49 AM
I think you are confusing the injunction with the libel trial
The (final) ruling in the injunction was that Amaral was entitled to express his opinion.
The libel trial ruled on whether that opinion could be considered factual, or at any rate, was based on purported facts that had not been proven untrue.
In direct contradiction of the higher court the libel trial judge said he was not allowed to express his opinion. Nothing to do with the truth or otherwise of his opinion, but because he was an ex policeman and had been involved in the investigation. He did two things wrong; he used his position which allowed him privileged access to the files and he failed to uphold the presumption of innocence as a retired policeman should.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 12, 2015, 09:16:50 AM
In direct contradiction of the higher court the libel trial judge said he was not allowed to express his opinion. Nothing to do with the truth or otherwise of his opinion, but because he was an ex policeman and had been involved in the investigation. He did two things wrong; he used his position which allowed him privileged access to the files and he failed to uphold the presumption of innocence as a retired policeman should.
do you have a cite for this
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: ferryman on October 12, 2015, 09:17:41 AM
In direct contradiction of the higher court the libel trial judge said he was not allowed to express his opinion. Nothing to do with the truth or otherwise of his opinion, but because he was an ex policeman and had been involved in the investigation. He did two things wrong; he used his position which allowed him privileged access to the files and he failed to uphold the presumption of innocence as a retired policeman should.
He did three things wrong: the two you mention, and he produced a book and a film that fabricated, misrepresented and distorted the fact.
Add to that, a fourth thing; he disseminated falsehoods in interviews.
Other than that, he was OK .....
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Montclair on October 12, 2015, 09:19:19 AM
Some people erroneously insist that the libel trial was a damages trial.
And the (developing) saga of the appeal is interesting, to say the least.
Just what are Amaral's grounds of appeal?
To be clear, defamation is falsehoods (in Portugal, proved) that lower reputation.
In the above extract we have a number of proved falsehoods that assuredly lower reputation, written by Amaral in his book, sold in vast numbers across countries of Europe.
There are many more examples.
And some people as yourself, keep insisting that the damages trial was a libel trial.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: ferryman on October 12, 2015, 09:21:10 AM
Harrison said he had no clue what happened to Madeleine.
And neither do you, Amaral or anyone else for that matter. Only the perp if there was one knows the answer to that particular riddle so your constant claims that Amaral is wrong are baseless.
For what its worth Amaral was best placed to understand the entire event so for him to get it entirely wrong is not logical. There must be some truth in what he uncovered given he was able to shake up Kate McCann to such an extent she refused to answer some pretty mild questions. Little did she know then that her refusal would later be made public in the way it was, that must have been embarrassing!!
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 12, 2015, 12:04:16 PM
And neither do you, Amaral or anyone else for that matter. Only the perp if there was one knows the answer to that particular riddle so your constant claims that Amaral is wrong are baseless.
Amaral is wrong to state his opinion as fact....
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Angelo222 on October 12, 2015, 12:09:03 PM
Only if its untrue. Ferryman harps on about Amaral misquoting Harrison and accuses him of failing to understand his results. Amaral's job was to come to his own conclusion, Harrison was but one of many tools!
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 12, 2015, 12:10:30 PM
so its ok for him to quote his opinion as fact...that's barmy
Not if he genuinely believes it. I can say that there are no human lifeforms on Mars. It is my opinion and a fact. It is also TRUE in terms of my own belief!
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 12, 2015, 12:16:43 PM
Only if its untrue. Ferryman harps on about Amaral misquoting Harrison and accuses him of failing to understand his results. Amaral's job was to come to his own conclusion, Harrison was but one of many tools!
Prior might have been another.
Did he really ring the FSS to berate them on the PJ's powers of arrest?
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Angelo222 on October 12, 2015, 03:02:46 PM
Just as the abduction theory has still to be proven.
I think this is one reason why this case intrigues so much in that there are simply so many possibilities even now some eight years on.
As far as the OP is concerned, it is a policeman's job to weigh up all the evidence and make a judgement call based on that and not on sentiment. One thing is for sure, right or wrong Amaral was his own man.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Eleanor on October 12, 2015, 03:57:31 PM
I think this is one reason why this case intrigues so much in that there are simply so many possibilities even now some eight years on.
As far as the OP is concerned, it is a policeman's job to weigh up all the evidence and make a judgement call based on that and not on sentiment. One thing is for sure, right or wrong Amaral was his own man.
Especially when it came to lining his own pocket. It was in his own interests to misrepresent anything that suited him.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on October 12, 2015, 04:18:57 PM
I take this to be the most questionable passage from Dr Amaral's book
Here, from his report, is what Harrison actually said:
Harrison explicitly ruled out burial.
The reference Harrison made to statistics is this:
And note the provisor: if death has occurred ...
So, Amaral has misrepresented Harrison as saying that Madeleine is definitely dead, that the statistics point to Madeleine being definitely dead, that her remains are buried somewhere in close proximity to PdL (when Harrison ruled out burial) and that her parents might well be responsible (when Harrison reached no, definitive, conclusion about what might have happened to Madeleine.)
Do Amaral's comments not verge on the libellous?
[Title and Post edited by Admin]
36
How certain are you that the presentation mentioned by Amaral was merely the report, rather than an interactive presentation to Amaral's team, thereby allowing any queries to be resolved?
If there was no presentation, merely the handing in of the report, then at least we could be sure of the starting point.
Then we would get to the next key difference. The bit quoted from Harrison's report is restricted to sub-surface deposition in/around PdL beach (note the beach of Luz beach). Amaral's book refers to burial in the area around Praia Da Luz.
Both make the same mistake of calling Luz 'Praia da Luz'. (Actually, in the Portuguese version of the book, he normally referred to it as Vila da Luz or Aldeia da Luz, not Praia da Luz, so I would need to check if this is a translation error.) Common as this mistake is, it is still a mistake. The town is called Luz, and only the beach is called Praia da Luz (the beach of Luz).
With Harrison, it is crystal clear that this section of his report is restricted to the beach area, so good he named it twice. Amaral is referring to the area around Luz, not to the area around the beach. The area around Luz is immensely larger than the beach area.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Brietta on October 12, 2015, 04:24:59 PM
I think this is one reason why this case intrigues so much in that there are simply so many possibilities even now some eight years on.
As far as the OP is concerned, it is a policeman's job to weigh up all the evidence and make a judgement call based on that and not on sentiment. One thing is for sure, right or wrong Amaral was his own man.
Is that a polite way of saying he was a loose cannon?
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Angelo222 on October 12, 2015, 04:34:15 PM
How certain are you that the presentation mentioned by Amaral was merely the report, rather than an interactive presentation to Amaral's tea, thereby allowing any queries to be resolved?
If there was no presentation, merely the handing in of the report, then at least we could be sure of the starting point.
Then we would get to the next key difference. The bit quoted from Harrison's report is restricted to sub-surface deposition in/around PdL beach (note the beach of Luz beach). Amaral's book refers to burial in the area around Praia Da Luz.
Both make the same mistake of calling Luz 'Praia da Luz'. (Actually, in the Portuguese version of the book, he normally referred to it as Vila da Luz or Aldeia da Luz, not Praia da Luz, so I would need to check if this is a translation error.) Common as this mistake is, it is still a mistake. The town is called Luz, and only the beach is called Praia da Luz (the beach of Luz).
With Harrison, it is crystal clear that this section of his report is restricted to the beach area, so good he named it twice. Amaral is referring to the area around Luz, not to the area around the beach. The area around Luz is immensely larger than the beach area.
Good point ShiningInLuz, it has become normal for the British press to refer to the entire town as Praia da Luz when that name properly refers only to the beach resort as depicted by the two webcams at the top of the page.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Angelo222 on October 12, 2015, 04:37:00 PM
And neither do you, Amaral or anyone else for that matter. Only the perp if there was one knows the answer to that particular riddle so your constant claims that Amaral is wrong are baseless.
For what its worth Amaral was best placed to understand the entire event so for him to get it entirely wrong is not logical. There must be some truth in what he uncovered given he was able to shake up Kate McCann to such an extent she refused to answer some pretty mild questions. Little did she know then that her refusal would later be made public in the way it was, that must have been embarrassing!!
(My added emphasis to the part in bold)
Would you not say that it was much more embarrassing that Amaral's wild guesswork (at most charitable) or outright lies (at probably more accurate) should be exposed by simple comparison of what he wrote in his book with what is written in the files?
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Eleanor on October 12, 2015, 05:07:45 PM
It was his prerogative to write a book revealing what went on once it was clear that the British Labour Gov wanted to silence him.
The British Labour Government? Are you serious? Why would The Labour Government want to silence a tin pot little man from some obscure Algarve village? You will be telling us next that Gordon Brown refused to sign that Treaty if Portugal didn't sack Amaral.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: G-Unit on October 12, 2015, 06:15:30 PM
Firstly, in case people are unaware, Mark Harrison was brought in following a request by Guillhemino Encamacao the Algarve Regional Director of the Portuguese Judicial Police. He asked for help from the NPIA. Harrison's brief was to help the Portuguese authorities by reviewing the searches already carried out and to advise how to carry out new searches but this time the search was for a body. He was not required to give an opinion as to whether Madeleine was dead, he was required to assume that she was and to advise how to search for her body.
This report has highlighted the extensive and professional efforts made by the Portuguese authorities regarding the search to locate Madeleine McCann alive. It has now begun to consider further opportunities to re search locations in order to address the possibility that she has been murdered and concealed nearby. This would be a proportionate and appropriate response given the elapsed time since her disappearance and previous experience in such similar cases. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: pegasus on October 12, 2015, 06:40:31 PM
MH recommended that Eddie should search various scrubland areas near the apartment and this was done on 1st Aug 2007 http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P8/08_VOLUME_VIIIa_Page_2058.jpg
My only critisism of MH's otherwise excellent recommendations is that all these scrubland areas are exclusively roughly northeast from the apartment. It is obvious IMO that this was because of the JT sighting focussing investigators' eyes northeastwards and never looking west. A scrubland area much closer to the apartment (immediately west of Block 4) was excluded, and the only reason IMO was that it is due west of the apartment, in the opposite direction of the JT sighting.
If MH had known at that time that the JT sighting was irrelevant, he (and therefore Amaral) would IMO have included this bit of scrubland on Eddie's list.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 12, 2015, 06:49:03 PM
The British Labour Government? Are you serious? Why would The Labour Government want to silence a tin pot little man from some obscure Algarve village? You will be telling us next that Gordon Brown refused to sign that Treaty if Portugal didn't sack Amaral.
The UK Government did get involved.
That is a fact.
The question is why did a couple of nondescript doctors need government backing in the first place ?
Did the Needhams get government intervention 20 years ago, or have the parents of other missing UK children had government help at prime ministerial level ?
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 12, 2015, 07:28:55 PM
The question is why did a couple of nondescript doctors need government backing in the first place ?
Did the Needhams get government intervention 20 years ago, or have the parents of other missing UK children had government help at prime ministerial level ?
. The clue is in 20 years ago It's quite normal for the govt to be involved in serious crimes against Brits abroad I'm sure a quick Google search would show other cases
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 12, 2015, 07:43:41 PM
With 3 prime ministers ?
Do tell.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 12, 2015, 07:45:58 PM
Firstly, in case people are unaware, Mark Harrison was brought in following a request by Guillhemino Encamacao the Algarve Regional Director of the Portuguese Judicial Police. He asked for help from the NPIA. Harrison's brief was to help the Portuguese authorities by reviewing the searches already carried out and to advise how to carry out new searches but this time the search was for a body. He was not required to give an opinion as to whether Madeleine was dead, he was required to assume that she was and to advise how to search for her body.
This report has highlighted the extensive and professional efforts made by the Portuguese authorities regarding the search to locate Madeleine McCann alive. It has now begun to consider further opportunities to re search locations in order to address the possibility that she has been murdered and concealed nearby.This would be a proportionate and appropriate response given the elapsed time since her disappearance and previous experience in such similar cases. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
So why did Amaral lie in his interview to the Spanish El Mundo magazine that (sic) we talked about death by others, not murder?
(Key parts underlined)
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 12, 2015, 07:53:31 PM
"by others" is unclear - does anyone have the full original spanish el mundo article so we can improve this translation?
I think it's unlikely that we talked about death by others, not murder has been mistranslated.
And certainly by English libel law, introducing the concept of murder, even in an oblique way, would amount to libel.
No clue whether the same is true by Portuguese law ....
And again, to bring my post back on-topic, Mark Harrison is crystal clear that he was handed a brief by the PJ, Amaral's boss whose name began with "E", that he was to investigate that Madeleine had been murdered.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 12, 2015, 08:09:17 PM
I would say it's normal Why do you think it's strange
"The then-Prime Minister Tony Blair sent special envoy Sheree Dodd to act as a 'media liaison officer' for the pair soon after Madeleine vanished". I think you will find this case is unique. In which other cases did the Blair government supply a government-paid media liason officer? And another one after that, who BTW continued to have phone contact with the parents after arguidoisation.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 12, 2015, 08:11:20 PM
MH recommended that Eddie should search various scrubland areas near the apartment and this was done on 1st Aug 2007 http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P8/08_VOLUME_VIIIa_Page_2058.jpg
My only critisism of MH's otherwise excellent recommendations is that all these scrubland areas are exclusively roughly northeast from the apartment. It is obvious IMO that this was because of the JT sighting focussing investigators' eyes northeastwards and never looking west. A scrubland area much closer to the apartment (immediately west of Block 4) was excluded, and the only reason IMO was that it is due west of the apartment, in the opposite direction of the JT sighting.
If MH had known at that time that the JT sighting was irrelevant, he (and therefore Amaral) would IMO have included this bit of scrubland on Eddie's list.
My I ask why the fixation on 'scrubland' within Luz? I am not picking on you, but asking a general question. Why could anyone not have walked/driven off from Luz? Take the scrubland on the east of the photo, which is actually valuable farmland. It is really close to 5A, so it is pick your perp time.
Lots of supposed suspects could have walked there. Plus, according to one well known UK newspaper, it has a well that has never been investigated. Except, according to the local English newspapers in the Algarve, this well has been searched for, but does not exist.
However, what I am really interested in is simple. Why does the criminal (if such there is) have to be on foot?
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 12, 2015, 08:18:43 PM
So let's have a few examples of repeated intervention by prime ministers, as in this case ?
Don't bother with Cameron in the Needham case, he was shamed into it.
The reason it's several PMs is the time it's been going on Cameron has been involved in the investigation into the murder of two young Brits in Thailand So that's 3 cases Cameron has been involved in
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 12, 2015, 08:48:19 PM
The reason it's several PMs is the time it's been going on Cameron has been involved in the investigation into the murder of two young Brits in Thailand So that's 3 cases Cameron has been involved in
Cameron was shamed in to doing something in the Needham case.
Brooks helping hand got him involved in the mccann case.
Meanwhile Blair, Brown and their wife's contacted the mccanns.
Has Cameron talked directly to the other families involved.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 12, 2015, 08:50:31 PM
My I ask why the fixation on 'scrubland' within Luz? I am not picking on you, but asking a general question. Why could anyone not have walked/driven off from Luz? Take the scrubland on the east of the photo, which is actually valuable farmland. It is really close to 5A, so it is pick your perp time.
Lots of supposed suspects could have walked there. Plus, according to one well known UK newspaper, it has a well that has never been investigated. Except, according to the local English newspapers in the Algarve, this well has been searched for, but does not exist.
However, what I am really interested in is simple. Why does the criminal (if such there is) have to be on foot?
There might have been a vehicle involved that night and there might not. Any investigation must consider both possibilities.
And while considering the "no vehicle" possibility, it is obvious that the areas of scrubland nearest the apartment must be searched. Even though MH flew over Luz to select which nearby scrubland to search, he left out the scrubland which is by far the closest, can be reached by crossing only one road, and which had the further advantage to the criminal that it was completely shielded from the view of passers-by.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: mercury on October 12, 2015, 10:04:32 PM
I think it's unlikely that we talked about death by others, not murder has been mistranslated.
And certainly by English libel law, introducing the concept of murder, even in an oblique way, would amount to libel.
No clue whether the same is true by Portuguese law ....
And again, to bring my post back on-topic, Mark Harrison is crystal clear that he was handed a brief by the PJ, Amaral's boss whose name began with "E", that he was to investigate that Madeleine had been murdered.
It is clear from that article you posted that Mr Amaral said he did not believe the parents killed their child but had a theory that she had an accident, so what are you going on about? "Obliquely" saying they murdered their child? The murder reference is to a burglary gone wrong IE "by others" and reading between the lines he probably included both as reasons for a simulation of abduction as they would be culpable to some degree. You're not misrepresenting what Mr A said are you?
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: slartibartfast on October 12, 2015, 10:10:08 PM
It is clear from that article you posted that Mr Amaral said he did not believe the parents killed their child but had a theory that she had an accident, so what are you going on about? "Obliquely" saying they murdered their child? The murder reference is to a burglary gone wrong IE "by others" and reading between the lines he probably included both as reasons for a simulation of abduction as they would be culpable to some degree. You're not misrepresenting what Mr A said are you?
There have been some strange arguments put forward recently.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: ferryman on October 12, 2015, 10:15:49 PM
It is clear from that article you posted that Mr Amaral said he did not believe the parents killed their child but had a theory that she had an accident, so what are you going on about? "Obliquely" saying they murdered their child? The murder reference is to a burglary gone wrong IE "by others" and reading between the lines he probably included both as reasons for a simulation of abduction as they would be culpable to some degree. You're not misrepresenting what Mr A said are you?
Amaral's exact words were: we talked about death by others, not murder.
Amaral, either was incompetent or lied.
Either way, the key point of interest is whether the factual inaccuracy (be it a lie or incompetent) amounts to libel (by Portuguese law).
It certainly would by English law.
And Harrison was certainly briefed by Amaral's boss to investigate that Madeleine had been murdered (contrary to Amaral's misrepresentation that Harrison turned the enquiry into one for a little girl assumed dead)
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: slartibartfast on October 12, 2015, 10:36:50 PM
Amaral's exact words were: we talked about death by others, not murder.
Amaral, either was incompetent or lied.
Either way, the key point of interest is whether the factual inaccuracy (be it a lie or incompetent) amounts to libel (by Portuguese law).
It certainly would by English law.
And Harrison was certainly briefed by Amaral's boss to investigate that Madeleine had been murdered (contrary to Amaral's misrepresentation that Harrison turned the enquiry into one for a little girl assumed dead)
Who is he supposed to be libelling there?
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: mercury on October 12, 2015, 10:39:33 PM
Amaral's exact words were: we talked about death by others, not murder.
Amaral, either was incompetent or lied.
Either way, the key point of interest is whether the factual inaccuracy (be it a lie or incompetent) amounts to libel (by Portuguese law).
It certainly would by English law.
And Harrison was certainly briefed by Amaral's boss to investigate that Madeleine had been murdered (contrary to Amaral's misrepresentation that Harrison turned the enquiry into one for a little girl assumed dead)
You're nitpicking yourself into a very tiny hole here IMO
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: ferryman on October 12, 2015, 10:42:41 PM
By English libel law, references by allusion can amount to libel.
Whether the same is true by Portuguese libel law, I have no idea.
Doubtless Jean-Pierre would be able to help us out on that point.
It's NOTHNG to do with libel, just your misunderstanding/misinterpretation/paranoia/wishful thinking
AMaral already SAID in your article he didn't believe the parents killed their child
You think you are at liberty to cherry pick and then misinterpret and accuse someone of libel but you're not, if you were right, everyone here would be agreeing with you...at least
ETA: Besides, since when have police theories been libellous? It's the police's job to investigate any possible hypothesis, they don't need permission! From the courts
To not do so might be seen as dereliction of duty
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: ferryman on October 12, 2015, 10:55:04 PM
It's NOTHNG to do with libel, just your misunderstanding/misinterpretation/paranoia/wishful thinking
AMaral already SAID in your article he didn't believe the parents killed their child
You think you are at liberty to cherry pick and then misinterpret and accuse someone of libel but you're not, if you were right, everyone here would be agreeing with you...at least
He said that he didn't believe they murdered them.
Or more specifically: we talked about death by others not murder.
By English law, and by introducing the topic of murder in that way, he would be committing libel, by planting the idea of murder, albeit obliquely, in the mind of the unwary reader.
Portuguese law might be completely different, I've no idea.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: mercury on October 12, 2015, 11:08:14 PM
He said that he didn't believe they murdered them.
Or more specifically: we talked about death by others not murder.
If you interpret all that as meaning she could have been killed by a stranger but mentioning murder meant the parents, that's your choice It still does not tally with Mr A saying he doesn't believe the parents killed her....talk about splitting hairs
I will leave this to someone with more ability than me to de split those hairs
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: ferryman on October 12, 2015, 11:16:29 PM
If you interpret all that as meaning she could have been killed by a stranger but mentioning murder meant the parents, that's your choice It still does not tally with Mr A saying he doesn't believe the parents killed her....talk about splitting hairs
I will leave this to someone with more ability than me to de split those hairs
As an example, try googling Lord McAlpine and trending.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: mercury on October 12, 2015, 11:28:13 PM
As an example, try googling Lord McAlpine and trending.
Don't be silly
That was an example of defamatory gossip Chalk and cheese As I said, a policeman exploring theories and believing one is he more likely, is not on the same level by any stretch, but it really is not your problem in any case
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: ferryman on October 12, 2015, 11:33:08 PM
That was an example of defamatory gossip Chalk and cheese As I said, a policeman exploring theories and believing one is he more likely, is not on the same level by any stretch, but it really is not your problem in any case
I am being contextual, factually accurate and sensible.
At least by English law. No clue how the same concepts work through in Portugal.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: mercury on October 12, 2015, 11:39:48 PM
I am being contextual, factually accurate and sensible.
At least by English law. No clue how the same concepts work through in Portugal.
English law has zilch to do with Portuguese law so not even sure why you are bothering to bring it up, besides, you would have tobe sure YOUR interpretation of a "string of words" would be same interpretation for a judge in any potential case, that is never happening, so you're wasting your time IMO
As I keep saying it's not libellous for policemen to have theories
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: ferryman on October 12, 2015, 11:44:43 PM
English law has zilch to do with Portuguese law so not even sure why you are bothering to bring it up, besides, you would have tobe sure YOUR interpretation of a "string of words" would be same interpretation for a judge in any potential case, that is never happening, so you're wasting your time IMO
As I keep saying it's not libellous for policemen to have theories
If they confine those theories to what the Portuguese term the process, true.
Amaral's problem is that he didn't.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: mercury on October 12, 2015, 11:48:15 PM
If they confine those theories to what the Portuguese term the process, true.
Amaral's problem is that he didn't.
He wanted to clear his name from the massive onslaught he suffered at the hands of the British press and the McCann machine and write about his experiences....I don't blame him...he's done NOTHNG different much from Kate McCann with her book, so there you go
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: ferryman on October 13, 2015, 12:04:51 AM
He wanted to clear his name from the massive onslaught he suffered at the hands of the British press and the McCann machine and write about his experiences....I don't blame him...he's done NOTHNG different much from Kate McCann with her book, so there you go
If Amaral had had his way, two innocent and grieving parents would be rotting in a Portuguese jail.
No clue what would have become of the twins and all hope for Madeleine would be lost.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: pegasus on October 13, 2015, 01:29:16 AM
Amaral's exact words were: we talked about death by others, not murder. ...(snip)
In the el mundo article the words printed are "hemos hablado de muerte por terceros no de homicidio" and Mercedes translated that spanish accurately into the english you post. But the original words spoken by Mr Amaral in the interview were portuguese IMO. It is abundantly clear from everything else that Mr Amaral says in the interview, that the original spoken portuguese was probably something similar in meaning to "we're talking about accidental death, not murder".
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: ferryman on October 13, 2015, 07:10:37 AM
In the el mundo article the words printed are "hemos hablado de muerte por terceros no de homicidio" and Mercedes translated that spanish accurately into the english you post. But the original words spoken by Mr Amaral in the interview were portuguese IMO. It is abundantly clear from everything else that Mr Amaral says in the interview, that the original spoken portuguese was probably something similar in meaning to "we're talking about accidental death, not murder".
Firstly, thank you for confirming that the English translation is an accurate rending of the Portuguese original.
Secondly, by English libel law, by introducing the subject of murder, even in the way that he did, that would amount to libel.
Here is a (contrived) comparable example:
They say Fred murdered her, but I don't believe a word.
Now, assuming that the context makes clear who, exactly, her is, and assuming that Fred (in context) would be instantly identifiable to readers, the above statement would be construed as libel in English law if there is no definitive proof linking Fred to the murder.
However, compare this sentence by contrast:
They say Fred murdered her, but I know that's not true, because at the time of the murder, Fred was in Australia with me.
Assuming it could be proved that the person who makes the statement and Fred were in Australia together at the time of the murder the above statement would not be libel.
Put concisely, to repeat a libel is to be guilty of libel, unless context makes clear that the person who is the subject of the statement cannot be misconstrued or thought of as in some way applicable to the statement made.
That is by English law.
The point about Amaral's statement is that the first (shelved) enquiry was a murder enquiry.
That is abundantly clear from Harrison's reports.
What I don't know is whether (by Portuguese law) the same applies.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: pegasus on October 13, 2015, 07:48:34 AM
Firstly, thank you for confirming that the English translation is an accurate rending of the Portuguese original.
Secondly, by English libel law, by introducing the subject of murder, even in the way that he did, that would amount to libel.
Here is a (contrived) comparable example:
They say Fred murdered her, but I don't believe a word.
Now, assuming that the context makes clear who, exactly, her is, and assuming that Fred (in context) would be instantly identifiable to readers, the above statement would be construed as libel in English law if there is no definitive proof linking Fred to the murder.
However, compare this sentence by contrast:
They say Fred murdered her, but I know that's not true, because at the time of the murder, Fred was in Australia with me.
Assuming it could be proved that the person who makes the statement and Fred were in Australia together at the time of the murder the above statement would not be libel.
Put concisely, to repeat a libel is to be guilty of libel, unless context makes clear that the person who is the subject of the statement cannot be misconstrued or thought of as in some way applicable to the statement made.
That is by English law.
The point about Amaral's statement is that the first (shelved) enquiry was a murder enquiry.
That is abundantly clear from Harrison's reports.
What I don't know is whether (by Portuguese law) the same applies.
No, I try to explain better. Mr Amaral speaks portuguese. The newspaper article is in spanish. They are two different languages. The portuguese to spanish translation of this sentence is incorrect IMO. The translation from the incorrect spanish translation into english is correct in that it accurately keeps the incorrectness of the spanish.
It is obvious from the context that neither the english nor the spanish are what Mr Amaral actually said in portuguese. Throughout the interview he is very clear that he is talking only about accident.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 13, 2015, 07:52:31 AM
And it highlights the difficulties in accurate translating
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: pegasus on October 13, 2015, 08:09:17 AM
And it highlights the difficulties in accurate translating
It highlights the importance of realising that journos sometimes mistranslate things. The worst example was the BBC who took Mr Amaral saying in portuguese "Fala com os McCann" and falsely claimed he was speaking english and saying "F the Mccanns".
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 13, 2015, 08:13:51 AM
It highlights the importance of realising that journos sometimes mistranslate things. The worst example was the BBC who took Mr Amaral saying in portuguese "Fala com os McCann" and falsely claimed he was speaking english and saying "F the Mccanns".
Then it highlights how much of the reporting and translated statements may contain errors
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Eleanor on October 13, 2015, 08:25:41 AM
It highlights the importance of realising that journos sometimes mistranslate things. The worst example was the BBC who took Mr Amaral saying in portuguese "Fala com os McCann" and falsely claimed he was speaking english and saying "F the Mccanns".
We don't know what he said because it was bleeped out. So we only have the word of Portuguese posters.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 13, 2015, 08:28:48 AM
He said that he didn't believe they murdered them.
Or more specifically: we talked about death by others not murder.
By English law, and by introducing the topic of murder in that way, he would be committing libel, by planting the idea of murder, albeit obliquely, in the mind of the unwary reader.
Portuguese law might be completely different, I've no idea.
That's not what you said the other day as regards Amaral.
Would you care to repeat it ?
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: pegasus on October 13, 2015, 08:37:15 AM
Then it highlights how much of the reporting and translated statements may contain errors
It is clear that search expert MH spent a great deal of time identifying possible locations where a body might have been concealed. This was the purpose of his survey of PDL by air and on foot in July 2007, as accurately described by Mr Amaral IMO.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: ferryman on October 13, 2015, 09:10:13 AM
It is clear that search expert MH spent a great deal of time identifying possible locations where a body might have been concealed. This was the purpose of his survey of PDL by air and on foot in July 2007, as accurately described by Mr Amaral IMO.
Working to the brief Amaral's boss gave him, he investigated that Madeleine had been murdered, so of course he did.
He also dug holes in various places to test whether Madeleine might have been buried (again, at the behest of the PJ).
Key point is, why did Amaral think Harrison wasn't investigating murder?
He was.
That's what the PJ asked him to do.
He followed instructions.
He couldn't (reasonably) do anything else.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: slartibartfast on October 13, 2015, 09:29:10 AM
... So GA was being less suspicious of the McCanns than the PJ instructions to Mark Harrison would suggest.
No.
Amaral was (attempting to!) cover his own backside because he didn't want to be sued.
By introducing the concept of 'murder', (after the archiving dispatch had made plain that there was no evidence against the McCanns) he would, at least by English libel law, have done the opposite.
Don't know about Portuguese libel law.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 13, 2015, 09:42:04 AM
Amaral was (attempting to!) cover his own backside because he didn't want to be sued.
By introducing the concept of 'murder', (after the archiving dispatch had made plain that there was no evidence against the McCanns) he would, at least by English libel law, have done the opposite.
Don't know about Portuguese libel law.
You are therefore implying directly that Amaral thought that the mccanns were responsible for Madeleine's death.
He said NO SUCH THING.
Why are you continuing to imply he did.
THAT IS LIBEL.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: ferryman on October 13, 2015, 10:08:21 AM
Calpol is for pain relief (straight paracetomaol) but there is an erroneous belief among some parents that it can also have a sedative effect.
I'm certain the McCanns (as both doctors) were under no such illusion.
In any event, they never used it on that holiday.
From Amarals book. and apart from other misinformation contained in it - IMO a clear attempt to convince his readers that calpol was used on the children as a sedative.
Quote One of the police officers who went to the McCanns' home in England, reported that a medical monitoring chart for Madeleine was posted in the kitchen. This referred to her sleep problems and made clear that she was waking several times in the night. The paternal grandfather stated that Kate gave the little girl - and also the twins - Calpol, a medication designed to facilitate falling asleep. That seems to be a common practice in Great Britain; they even talk about a "Calpol generation." In recent years, the possible presence of an antihistamine with sedative effects in Calpol has aroused great controversy. Recently, the same laboratory put Calpol Night on the market, whose ingredients clearly list that it contains an antihistamine.
The mother admits having taken some to Portugal. She insists though that there is no calming effect, its being composed solely of paracetamol, and that she did not give any of it to her daughter during the holiday. At the time of her disappearance, Madeleine was sleeping in the same room as the twins. The latter, in spite of the noise, the mother's screaming and the comings and goings, did not wake up, as if they had been given sedatives. Would there not be a link between that difficulty in falling asleep and Madeleine's tragic end?
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 13, 2015, 11:04:11 AM
From Amarals book. and apart from other misinformation contained in it - IMO a clear attempt to convince his readers that calpol was used on the children as a sedative.
Quote One of the police officers who went to the McCanns' home in England, reported that a medical monitoring chart for Madeleine was posted in the kitchen. This referred to her sleep problems and made clear that she was waking several times in the night. The paternal grandfather stated that Kate gave the little girl - and also the twins - Calpol, a medication designed to facilitate falling asleep. That seems to be a common practice in Great Britain; they even talk about a "Calpol generation." In recent years, the possible presence of an antihistamine with sedative effects in Calpol has aroused great controversy. Recently, the same laboratory put Calpol Night on the market, whose ingredients clearly list that it contains an antihistamine.
The mother admits having taken some to Portugal. She insists though that there is no calming effect, its being composed solely of paracetamol, and that she did not give any of it to her daughter during the holiday. At the time of her disappearance, Madeleine was sleeping in the same room as the twins. The latter, in spite of the noise, the mother's screaming and the comings and goings, did not wake up, as if they had been given sedatives. Would there not be a link between that difficulty in falling asleep and Madeleine's tragic end?
Talk about desperation.
Now where does Amaral use the 'M' word in respect to the mccanns ?
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 13, 2015, 11:05:54 AM
Though it is one of the symptoms of paracetamol poisoning.
There was a paediatrician on TVs at the time who stated that it would have been impossible to give Maddie enough calpol to cause poisoning ... She would have been violently sick first Paracetamol poisoning causes a long death with the patient being very ill for some time Calpol is a non starter
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 13, 2015, 11:13:34 AM
There was a paediatrician on TVs at the time who stated that it would have been impossible to give Maddie enough calpol to cause poisoning ... She would have been violently sick first Paracetamol poisoning causes a long death with the patient being very ill for some time Calpol is a non starter
I agree totally.
However, a child waking up groggily from sleep is hardly unknown.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: ferryman on October 13, 2015, 11:14:22 AM
From Amarals book. and apart from other misinformation contained in it - IMO a clear attempt to convince his readers that calpol was used on the children as a sedative.
Quote One of the police officers who went to the McCanns' home in England, reported that a medical monitoring chart for Madeleine was posted in the kitchen. This referred to her sleep problems and made clear that she was waking several times in the night. The paternal grandfather stated that Kate gave the little girl - and also the twins - Calpol, a medication designed to facilitate falling asleep. That seems to be a common practice in Great Britain; they even talk about a "Calpol generation." In recent years, the possible presence of an antihistamine with sedative effects in Calpol has aroused great controversy. Recently, the same laboratory put Calpol Night on the market, whose ingredients clearly list that it contains an antihistamine.
The mother admits having taken some to Portugal. She insists though that there is no calming effect, its being composed solely of paracetamol, and that she did not give any of it to her daughter during the holiday. At the time of her disappearance, Madeleine was sleeping in the same room as the twins. The latter, in spite of the noise, the mother's screaming and the comings and goings, did not wake up, as if they had been given sedatives. Would there not be a link between that difficulty in falling asleep and Madeleine's tragic end?
Good spot Benice.
There is also the passage in Kate's book where she describes that they had gone away (somewhere, I forgotten now where) and they put Madeleine down to sleep for the night, and she slept right through.
That was the point where Madeleine's sleep problems became a thing of the past.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: stephen25000 on October 13, 2015, 11:16:22 AM
There is also the passage in Kate's book where she describes that they had gone away (somewhere, I forgotten now where) and they put Madeleine down to sleep for the night, and she slept right through.
That was the point where Madeleine's sleep problems became a thing of the past.
Where is the 'M' word ?
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: ferryman on October 13, 2015, 11:20:53 AM
Amaral merely states what in his opinion was the most plausible scenario given the results received from Harrison. He does not state that his opinion and those expressed by Harrison are the same, in reality a somewhat subtle difference.
Harrison was too street savvy to make specific accusations in his Reports, however, Amaral felt he was not similiarly constrained by Portuguese law.
That's certainly not how it reads to me.
I agree with FM on this point.
According to GA, Harrison's conclusions confirmed his team's worst fears, i.e., that she was definitely dead. All Harrison was doing was what should have happened back in mid-May 07: it was part of a ground-clearing exercise, as it can't be ruled out that she died and her body dumped somewhere nearby. That seems fairly standard to me.
Even if we were expecting it, his conclusions confirm our worst fears. The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 13, 2015, 11:33:31 AM
From Amarals book. and apart from other misinformation contained in it - IMO a clear attempt to convince his readers that calpol was used on the children as a sedative.
Quote One of the police officers who went to the McCanns' home in England, reported that a medical monitoring chart for Madeleine was posted in the kitchen. This referred to her sleep problems and made clear that she was waking several times in the night. The paternal grandfather stated that Kate gave the little girl - and also the twins - Calpol, a medication designed to facilitate falling asleep. That seems to be a common practice in Great Britain; they even talk about a "Calpol generation." In recent years, the possible presence of an antihistamine with sedative effects in Calpol has aroused great controversy. Recently, the same laboratory put Calpol Night on the market, whose ingredients clearly list that it contains an antihistamine.
The mother admits having taken some to Portugal. She insists though that there is no calming effect, its being composed solely of paracetamol, and that she did not give any of it to her daughter during the holiday. At the time of her disappearance, Madeleine was sleeping in the same room as the twins. The latter, in spite of the noise, the mother's screaming and the comings and goings, did not wake up, as if they had been given sedatives. Would there not be a link between that difficulty in falling asleep and Madeleine's tragic end?
If he'd checked beyond a PT tabloid quoting a UK tabloid and found out what Calpol actually was... he'd have known that Calpol is simply paracetamol and Calpol Night wasn't even on the market at the time.
It'a a bit like those publications found in the villa that were supposdely "restricted" to government agencies. They weren't, they were freely available on line for the general public.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Brietta on October 13, 2015, 12:17:32 PM
If he'd checked beyond a PT tabloid quoting a UK tabloid and found out what Calpol actually was... he'd have known that Calpol is simply paracetamol and Calpol Night wasn't even on the market at the time.
It'a a bit like those publications found in the villa that were supposdely "restricted" to government agencies. They weren't, they were freely available on line for the general public.
I don't think it would have made very much difference whatever Harrison had said ... I think there was a very closed mindset in operation ...
**Snip Interviewer But when did you sum “two plus two”?
Mr Amaral That is part of the investigation work and the logics of the investigator. He joins things throughout time. There was atypical behaviour from the witnesses right away, which then transforms into indicia.
Then one realises that people are lying. How can anyone who has the obligation to cooperate with the police, not do so?! All the person wants is to receive information and all that the person says is a lie?!
Then it was necessary to understand why they lied. Were they afraid of the police? Of its reaction? Of the exposure and abandonment of the children? But when we asked, they said no, and insisted that the little girl had been abducted. This immediately caused strangeness and suspicion.
Nothing about following evidence in a professional way; I think it reeks of prejudice and opinion and a mind which was made up and obdurately closed to all but the preconceived notion of guilt.
Did Portugal not have an interviewer like Paxman, capable of challenge and in depth question?
If a child has vanished without trace ... why should a parent's conviction that she has been abducted cause argument with the investigators unless they are not looking for her or evidence as to what may have happened ... and why should it cause suspicion.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 13, 2015, 12:38:13 PM
According to GA, Harrison's conclusions confirmed his team's worst fears, i.e., that she was definitely dead. All Harrison was doing was what should have happened back in mid-May 07: it was part of a ground-clearing exercise, as it can't be ruled out that she died and her body dumped somewhere nearby. That seems fairly standard to me.
Even if we were expecting it, his conclusions confirm our worst fears. The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz.
I wonder why he said "the most plausible scenario" and what he meant by it ? Should we take it at face value meaning or look for some carefully crafted subliminal message?
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Carana on October 13, 2015, 12:42:09 PM
I wonder why he said "the most plausible scenario" and what he meant by it ? Should we take it at face value meaning or look for some carefully crafted subliminal message?
Ah.... if I'm not mistaken, there's a translation issue there. I'm sure I've pointed this out before. Will check.
ETA: Após uma intensa semana de trabalho, Mark apresentou um relatório com as conclusões do seu estudo aos elementos da coordenação e as notícias, apesar de esperadas, não eram as melhores. Na verdade, aquele relatório plasmava uma das piores hipóteses para os investigadores: o provável cenário de Madeleine estar morta, e o seu cadáver escondido nas proximidades da Praia da Luz.
To be fair, the original isn't as categorical as the English (translated via French).
I understand the original to mean that Harrison's report gave substance to one of the worst scenarios for the investigators: the probable scenario that M was dead...
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 13, 2015, 12:48:26 PM
Yeah done that but not being fluent in Portuguese I bunged the bit under discussion into Google Translate and :
In fact, that report plasmava one of the worst cases to investigators : the probable scenario Madeleine is dead , and his body hidden in the vicinity of Praia da Luz. So we don't have a direct translation of "plasmava" and most plausible becomes probable which is pretty the same in intent if not grammatically.
So back to original question why do you think he said "the most plausible" or "probable" ? Or as I might it "yeah but stands a chance". Now when I say that I mean just that. My other would be "yeah well it's an odds on racin' cert". So cutting to the chase when Sr Amaral said "most plausible" or "probable" do you not think he meant just that? rather than anything more definitive?.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: ferryman on October 13, 2015, 01:39:59 PM
Ah.... if I'm not mistaken, there's a translation issue there. I'm sure I've pointed this out before. Will check.
ETA: Após uma intensa semana de trabalho, Mark apresentou um relatório com as conclusões do seu estudo aos elementos da coordenação e as notícias, apesar de esperadas, não eram as melhores. Na verdade, aquele relatório plasmava uma das piores hipóteses para os investigadores: o provável cenário de Madeleine estar morta, e o seu cadáver escondido nas proximidades da Praia da Luz.
To be fair, the original isn't as categorical as the English (translated via French).
I understand the original to mean that Harrison's report gave substance to one of the worst scenarios for the investigators: the probable scenario that M was dead...
Probable scenario distinct from (English translation): there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead.
How does the bit translated as saying that the perpetrator is most likely someone close to Madeleine; perhaps even her parents, stand up?
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: ferryman on October 13, 2015, 01:49:00 PM
I think we get a flavour of where all the Wikipedias crap came from ....
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: G-Unit on October 13, 2015, 02:05:43 PM
Yeah done that but not being fluent in Portuguese I bunged the bit under discussion into Google Translate and :
In fact, that report plasmava one of the worst cases to investigators : the probable scenario Madeleine is dead , and his body hidden in the vicinity of Praia da Luz. So we don't have a direct translation of "plasmava" and most plausible becomes probable which is pretty the same in intent if not grammatically.
So back to original question why do you think he said "the most plausible" or "probable" ? Or as I might it "yeah but stands a chance". Now when I say that I mean just that. My other would be "yeah well it's an odds on racin' cert". So cutting to the chase when Sr Amaral said "most plausible" or "probable" do you not think he meant just that? rather than anything more definitive?.
Plasmava? Does it even exist in Portuguese? There is a Spanish word 'Plasmada' which translates as 'captured', which can be used to mean 'show'.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Carana on October 13, 2015, 02:30:30 PM
Yeah done that but not being fluent in Portuguese I bunged the bit under discussion into Google Translate and :
In fact, that report plasmava one of the worst cases to investigators : the probable scenario Madeleine is dead , and his body hidden in the vicinity of Praia da Luz. So we don't have a direct translation of "plasmava" and most plausible becomes probable which is pretty the same in intent if not grammatically.
So back to original question why do you think he said "the most plausible" or "probable" ? Or as I might it "yeah but stands a chance". Now when I say that I mean just that. My other would be "yeah well it's an odds on racin' cert". So cutting to the chase when Sr Amaral said "most plausible" or "probable" do you not think he meant just that? rather than anything more definitive?.
Perhaps Montclair might help on the meaning of "plasmava" in Portuguese. My understanding is that it means "gave substance to", "gave shape to" from the idea of moulding an object from a lump of clay or wood, for example.
FM was relying on the English translation, which is inaccurate. The original doesn't say that Harrison's conclusion led Amaral's team to believe that there was no doubt that she was definitely dead.
I don't understand why, after all this time, this was never corrected in the translation.
As to the most probable / plausible scenario issue...
Harrison had apparently presented statistics of the various relationships to a child, when a child had died in suspicious circumstances and had expertise in the most likely dumping places of least effort in the surrounding area.
I don't have a problem with that, as people close to a child (by relationship or by proximity) are often responsible.
But it was a ground-clearing exercise. No trace of her was found.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Carana on October 13, 2015, 02:32:45 PM
Perhaps Montclair might help on the meaning of "plasmava" in Portuguese. My understanding is that it means "gave substance to", "gave shape to" from the idea of moulding an object from a lump of clay or wood, for example.
FM was relying on the English translation, which is inaccurate. The original doesn't say that Harrison's conclusion led Amaral's team to believe that there was no doubt that she was definitely dead.
I don't understand why, after all this time, this was never corrected in the translation.
As to the most probable / plausible scenario issue...
Harrison had apparently presented statistics of the various relationships to a child, when a child had died in suspicious circumstances and had expertise in the most likely dumping places of least effort in the surrounding area.
I don't have a problem with that, as people close to a child (by relationship or by proximity) are often responsible.
But it was a ground-clearing exercise. No trace of her was found.
That's helpful, Carana. Thank you.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Carana on October 13, 2015, 02:39:46 PM
Probable scenario distinct from (English translation): there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead.
How does the bit translated as saying that the perpetrator is most likely someone close to Madeleine; perhaps even her parents, stand up?
It was a fairly standard possibility to explore. I have no problem with that, I doubt that the McCanns do, either. Ground-clearing is important, but should have been done right at the beginning.
I have never found what statistics Harrison presented. Whatever it was is quite possibly related to when a child was found to have died or had been murdered. There are lots of missing children out there, so I don't see how statistics can be established on who was responsible in the absence of any evidence.
In this case, no trace of Madeleine was found one way or another. Ergo, she could still be alive.
ETA: AND, whatever statistics say means nothing in terms of what happened to any specific child.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: ferryman on October 13, 2015, 03:02:33 PM
It was a fairly standard possibility to explore. I have no problem with that, I doubt that the McCanns do, either. Ground-clearing is important, but should have been done right at the beginning.
I have never found what statistics Harrison presented. Whatever it was is quite possibly related to when a child was found to have died or had been murdered. There are lots of missing children out there, so I don't see how statistics can be established on who was responsible in the absence of any evidence.
In this case, no trace of Madeleine was found one way or another. Ergo, she could still be alive.
ETA: AND, whatever statistics say means nothing in terms of what happened to any specific child.
From Harrison's reports, the only reference to statistics I can find is this, right at the end of his final report:
I am currently of the opinion on the available information and statistical datasets that if death has occurred, that it is possible that Madeleine McCann’s body has been disposed into the sea at Praia da Luz. (See my second report entitled “NPIA OP TASK Search Doc Beach and Marine”).
ETA: I think that reference also gives the lie to the notion that Harrison is the one who turned investigation into one for a little girl assumed dead.
He was handed a brief by the PJ to explore that Madeleine was dead, indeed, had been murdered, and worked to it.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Mr Gray on October 13, 2015, 03:15:45 PM
It was a fairly standard possibility to explore. I have no problem with that, I doubt that the McCanns do, either. Ground-clearing is important, but should have been done right at the beginning.
I have never found what statistics Harrison presented. Whatever it was is quite possibly related to when a child was found to have died or had been murdered. There are lots of missing children out there, so I don't see how statistics can be established on who was responsible in the absence of any evidence.
In this case, no trace of Madeleine was found one way or another. Ergo, she could still be alive.
ETA: AND, whatever statistics say means nothing in terms of what happened to any specific child.
I think it would be possible to use statistics to rule the McCanns out
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: slartibartfast on October 13, 2015, 03:16:13 PM
From Amarals book. and apart from other misinformation contained in it - IMO a clear attempt to convince his readers that calpol was used on the children as a sedative.
Quote One of the police officers who went to the McCanns' home in England, reported that a medical monitoring chart for Madeleine was posted in the kitchen. This referred to her sleep problems and made clear that she was waking several times in the night. The paternal grandfather stated that Kate gave the little girl - and also the twins - Calpol, a medication designed to facilitate falling asleep. That seems to be a common practice in Great Britain; they even talk about a "Calpol generation." In recent years, the possible presence of an antihistamine with sedative effects in Calpol has aroused great controversy. Recently, the same laboratory put Calpol Night on the market, whose ingredients clearly list that it contains an antihistamine.
The mother admits having taken some to Portugal. She insists though that there is no calming effect, its being composed solely of paracetamol, and that she did not give any of it to her daughter during the holiday. At the time of her disappearance, Madeleine was sleeping in the same room as the twins. The latter, in spite of the noise, the mother's screaming and the comings and goings, did not wake up, as if they had been given sedatives. Would there not be a link between that difficulty in falling asleep and Madeleine's tragic end?
So not specifically a sedative then.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: slartibartfast on October 13, 2015, 03:17:17 PM
It was a fairly standard possibility to explore. I have no problem with that, I doubt that the McCanns do, either. Ground-clearing is important, but should have been done right at the beginning.
I have never found what statistics Harrison presented. Whatever it was is quite possibly related to when a child was found to have died or had been murdered. There are lots of missing children out there, so I don't see how statistics can be established on who was responsible in the absence of any evidence.
In this case, no trace of Madeleine was found one way or another. Ergo, she could still be alive.
ETA: AND, whatever statistics say means nothing in terms of what happened to any specific child.
I agree with you on the statistics, Carana. I think it an extraordinary fact that what Harrison was asked to do had apparently not been carried out right at the very beginning.
I also find it jaw dropping that the elementary process of eliminating the Drs McCann in the early stages has somehow become their fault and not that of the investigation. But I think that may be because the investigation had decided early on to rule them in and did not deviate from that course, so in fact they had been investigated from the beginning.
Going back to statistics, it has been noted that often stranger abduction resulted in the child being found close to the place from which s\he had been taken, sometimes alive more often not. We do know that the same areas visited by Harrison had been searched and cleared. So what was the point? The Portuguese had used search and rescue teams.
Was it something to do with a misplaced belief about the power and ability of the British dogs to do something the Portuguese dogs were incapable of, since I believe they must have covered that ground already in the course of the initial searches?
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Carana on October 13, 2015, 04:17:07 PM
From Harrison's reports, the only reference to statistics I can find is this, right at the end of his final report:
I am currently of the opinion on the available information and statistical datasets that if death has occurred, that it is possible that Madeleine McCann’s body has been disposed into the sea at Praia da Luz. (See my second report entitled “NPIA OP TASK Search Doc Beach and Marine”).
ETA: I think that reference also gives the lie to the notion that Harrison is the one who turned investigation into one for a little girl assumed dead.
He was handed a brief by the PJ to explore that Madeleine was dead, indeed, had been murdered, and worked to it.
Agree. The key point being IFFFF. From everything that I've read about standard police procedure, I just don't see anything odd about checking if a body could be somewhere nearby.
Despite the translation issue, Amaral seems to make this sound more ominous than it was - it's not. Just procedure that should have been carried out shortly after her disappearance.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 13, 2015, 10:50:38 PM
I agree with you on the statistics, Carana. I think it an extraordinary fact that what Harrison was asked to do had apparently not been carried out right at the very beginning.
I also find it jaw dropping that the elementary process of eliminating the Drs McCann in the early stages has somehow become their fault and not that of the investigation. But I think that may be because the investigation had decided early on to rule them in and did not deviate from that course, so in fact they had been investigated from the beginning.
Going back to statistics, it has been noted that often stranger abduction resulted in the child being found close to the place from which s\he had been taken, sometimes alive more often not. We do know that the same areas visited by Harrison had been searched and cleared. So what was the point? The Portuguese had used search and rescue teams.
Was it something to do with a misplaced belief about the power and ability of the British dogs to do something the Portuguese dogs were incapable of, since I believe they must have covered that ground already in the course of the initial searches?
The PJ were following all leads like the alleged abductor Jane saw while the McCanns were being protected. Are you mad said Mr Buck.
GA: On the first night, a dossier about the family was requested, which the English authorities never sent. It was said that they were connected to commissions that emitted opinion reports on nuclear issues, but none of that was ever confirmed officially. Connections to political parties were also mentioned.
Did the British police send information about the McCanns and their friends?
No. They never sent the information that we requested. In fact, they did send only once, financial information. They stated that the couple had a mortgage and that there was no knowledge of any credit or debit cards. How didn’t they have any? The registration of the rental car mentions the card numbers. Concerning the other members of the group, the information was also only that.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 13, 2015, 11:03:04 PM
It's a joke when the PJ get the abuse when the Brits didn't help them from the start. Maybe they're spending 12 million + because they are rightly ashamed of their actions and I don't think it's no mistake that the Gaspar statement arrived after Amaral left.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: pegasus on October 13, 2015, 11:42:48 PM
The PJ were following all leads like the alleged abductor Jane saw while the McCanns were being protected. Are you mad said Mr Buck.
GA: On the first night, a dossier about the family was requested, which the English authorities never sent. It was said that they were connected to commissions that emitted opinion reports on nuclear issues, but none of that was ever confirmed officially. Connections to political parties were also mentioned.
Did the British police send information about the McCanns and their friends?
No. They never sent the information that we requested. In fact, they did send only once, financial information. They stated that the couple had a mortgage and that there was no knowledge of any credit or debit cards. How didn’t they have any? The registration of the rental car mentions the card numbers. Concerning the other members of the group, the information was also only that.
That does seem like a bit of a joke.....unless somene can explain otherwise..
Ps PF who did Buck call mad? Ref the nuclear power that thing, I never knew that was any part of any police discussion...well well you learn something new every day
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: mercury on October 14, 2015, 01:14:03 AM
As every doctor knows, no way is it a sedative drug or anything like that.
Oh this? Yes, the interviewer never mentioned sedatives I suppose, he (Gerry) did, in ref to calpol question, but they were by that time in Gerrys mind (referring to that) seeing as it had been a theory in the papers for a while , body languagers might have a different view rightly or wrongly
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Carana on October 14, 2015, 07:56:17 AM
That does seem like a bit of a joke.....unless somene can explain otherwise..
Ps PF who did Buck call mad? Ref the nuclear power that thing, I never knew that was any part of any police discussion...well well you learn something new every day
He missed the bottom line:
Records of current bank accounts are not automatically held. They are recorded when and if required for credit checking purposes only. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS9_FINANCIAL.htm
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 14, 2015, 08:29:14 AM
That does seem like a bit of a joke.....unless somene can explain otherwise..
Ps PF who did Buck call mad? Ref the nuclear power that thing, I never knew that was any part of any police discussion...well well you learn something new every day
He called Amaral mad for doing his job. It's in truth of the lie. He said are you mad with all the press here when Amaral wanted to take their clothes for examining. There wouldn't be any press if the McCanns and their friends did what the police told them - No media. Getting the media involved changed this case. You can't investigate the parents the media will find out and all hell will break loose.
John Buck, the British Ambassador in Lisbon at the time of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance went to Portimão to demand that the PJ immediately announce to the media – especially the British media – that the disappearance of Madeleine was an abduction and that her parents, Kate and Gerry McCann were two innocent victims. “Immediately after Madeleine’s disappearance, when we did not yet know whether it was the case of an abduction or a different kind of crime, the PJ were obliged to issue a statement, on 5th May, announcing the abduction thesis”, announced inspector Gonçalo Amaral, emphasising that the statement had been issued in spite of his opposition and that of other inspectors participating in the inquiry.
Gonçalo Amaral was speaking yesterday in Madrid as part of an exclusive interview with SOS Madeleine McCann and Gazeta Digital.
According to sources close to the British Embassy in Lisbon, the Ambassador John Buck, previous to this intervention at the PJ in Faro and Portimão, had already discussed the affair with the Portuguese Minister for Foreign Affairs.
“In a situation like the one we were presented with, in the interest of the child, no possibility would have been discarded, even the possibility concerning the parents, those that were close and the friends. Above all there was not the slightest indication of abduction”, Amaral concluded, emphasising that the “rest of the investigation has proved that”.
“They took advantage of the space we gave them, it was a mistake on our part.”
Also on 5th May 2007, two days after the announcement of Madeleine’s disappearance, the police, according to Amaral, would commit an important error: “We were busy checking all the traces that came with the Ambassador. Traces that were moreover, found to be false”.
New instructions from the regional national directorate of the PJ, given after the intervention of two British diplomats – Ambassador John Buck and Consul Bill Henderson – turned the investigator’s attention away from the McCanns.
Kate and Gerry McCann, for the first and only time, went to hand in clothes to be washed in the Complex laundry, including Madeleine’s clothes, which the inspectors only heard about two days later. Too late, according to Amaral.
“At the time we had not established exactly which clothes Gerry was wearing on the night of the disappearance nor which clothes were handed in to be washed on 5th May”, says Gonçalo Amaral.
It was by means of the statements by various members of staff from the complex, linked to the laundry service, that the inspectors were to learn that the McCanns had their children’s clothes – those of Madeleine and also those of Sean and Amélie – washed. “That would never have happened without the intervention of Mark Warner and, in particular, of the Ambassador. They took advantage of the space we gave them, It was a mistake on our part”, admits Gonçalo Amaral.
“Last Saturday (05/05/2007) I received a bag of clothes brought in by Mark Warner staff, and was told expressly that these belonged to Madeleine’s family – there was adult clothing (male and female) and children’s clothing… “, states one of the laundry workers. Although the laundry worker only remembers a pink skirt belonging to Madeleine, she has no uncertainty in confirming that there were also other clothes belonging to the small British girl, which has also been confirmed to the police by other colleagues.
Daily Express: Madeleine: British Diplomat had doubts about McCanns 3 December 2007 (no longer on-line)
A British diplomat warned the Foreign Office of concerns regarding Madeleine McCann’s parents, it emerged last night. Doubts about Kate and Gerry McCann were raised almost immediately by an official sent to Praia da Luz due to what he considered to be “inconsistencies” in the couple’s testimonies about the night the four-year-old vanished. The warning was contained in a classified document sent from the Algarve to the Foreign Office days after Madeleine’s disappearance. Details of the letter have been leaked through the British diplomatic mission in Brussels to the respected Belgian newspaper Derniere Heure.
The unnamed diplomat voices his concern about the “confused declarations” as to the whereabouts of Kate and Gerry McCann and their friends in the final hours before Madeleine’s disappearance. He also mentions the couple’s “lack of co-operation” with the Portuguese police in the light of instructions from London suggesting consular staff “overstretch their authority and put pressure on the Portuguese authorities”. The document also asks for confirmation of orders sent by the Foreign Office in London the day before, commanding embassy staff to give “all possible assistance to the McCann couple”.
Diplomats on the Algarve were told the McCanns had to be “accompanied at all times during any contact with the Portuguese police” by a member of consular staff or by British police officers sent out from the UK. The letter, sent just days after Madeleine disappeared, warns of the risks of siding with the McCanns so completely. Excerpts published in a report by La Derniere Heure quote the diplomat as saying: “With the greatest respect, I would like to make you aware of the risks and implications to our relationship with the Portuguese authorities, if you consider the possible involvement of the couple. “Please confirm to me, in the light of these concerns, that we want to continue to be closely involved in the case as was requested in your previous message.”
A huge team of diplomats have been involved in the case since Gerry McCann asked the Foreign Office for help. In an unprecedented move, the then Prime Minister Tony Blair despatched special envoy Sheree Dodd, a former Fleet Street journalist, to Portugal to act as a “media liaison officer” for the McCann family. Direct government communications with the McCanns came to an abrupt halt, however, when the couple were made official suspects in the case in September.
Portuguese detectives believe it is possible Madeleine died as the result of an accident on May 3 in the family’s holiday apartment and that her parents hid and later disposed of her body with the help of their friends. The couple have always said they had nothing to do with their daughter’s disappearance. The Belgian report says it is highly significant that almost all of the diplomats involved at the outset have now been taken off the case.
Special envoy Sheree Dodd has since resigned from the Foreign Office, the British consul in the Algarve Bill Henderson has retired and the British ambassador to Portugal John Buck is no longer in Portugal. Last night the Foreign Office refused to comment on the report.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on October 14, 2015, 11:31:38 AM
He called Amaral mad for doing his job. It's in truth of the lie. He said are you mad with all the press here when Amaral wanted to take their clothes for examining. There wouldn't be any press if the McCanns and their friends did what the police told them - No media. Getting the media involved changed this case. You can't investigate the parents the media will find out and all hell will break loose.
John Buck, the British Ambassador in Lisbon at the time of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance went to Portimão to demand that the PJ immediately announce to the media – especially the British media – that the disappearance of Madeleine was an abduction and that her parents, Kate and Gerry McCann were two innocent victims. “Immediately after Madeleine’s disappearance, when we did not yet know whether it was the case of an abduction or a different kind of crime, the PJ were obliged to issue a statement, on 5th May, announcing the abduction thesis”, announced inspector Gonçalo Amaral, emphasising that the statement had been issued in spite of his opposition and that of other inspectors participating in the inquiry.
Gonçalo Amaral was speaking yesterday in Madrid as part of an exclusive interview with SOS Madeleine McCann and Gazeta Digital.
According to sources close to the British Embassy in Lisbon, the Ambassador John Buck, previous to this intervention at the PJ in Faro and Portimão, had already discussed the affair with the Portuguese Minister for Foreign Affairs.
“In a situation like the one we were presented with, in the interest of the child, no possibility would have been discarded, even the possibility concerning the parents, those that were close and the friends. Above all there was not the slightest indication of abduction”, Amaral concluded, emphasising that the “rest of the investigation has proved that”.
“They took advantage of the space we gave them, it was a mistake on our part.”
Also on 5th May 2007, two days after the announcement of Madeleine’s disappearance, the police, according to Amaral, would commit an important error: “We were busy checking all the traces that came with the Ambassador. Traces that were moreover, found to be false”.
New instructions from the regional national directorate of the PJ, given after the intervention of two British diplomats – Ambassador John Buck and Consul Bill Henderson – turned the investigator’s attention away from the McCanns.
Kate and Gerry McCann, for the first and only time, went to hand in clothes to be washed in the Complex laundry, including Madeleine’s clothes, which the inspectors only heard about two days later. Too late, according to Amaral.
“At the time we had not established exactly which clothes Gerry was wearing on the night of the disappearance nor which clothes were handed in to be washed on 5th May”, says Gonçalo Amaral.
It was by means of the statements by various members of staff from the complex, linked to the laundry service, that the inspectors were to learn that the McCanns had their children’s clothes – those of Madeleine and also those of Sean and Amélie – washed. “That would never have happened without the intervention of Mark Warner and, in particular, of the Ambassador. They took advantage of the space we gave them, It was a mistake on our part”, admits Gonçalo Amaral.
“Last Saturday (05/05/2007) I received a bag of clothes brought in by Mark Warner staff, and was told expressly that these belonged to Madeleine’s family – there was adult clothing (male and female) and children’s clothing… “, states one of the laundry workers. Although the laundry worker only remembers a pink skirt belonging to Madeleine, she has no uncertainty in confirming that there were also other clothes belonging to the small British girl, which has also been confirmed to the police by other colleagues.
Daily Express: Madeleine: British Diplomat had doubts about McCanns 3 December 2007 (no longer on-line)
A British diplomat warned the Foreign Office of concerns regarding Madeleine McCann’s parents, it emerged last night. Doubts about Kate and Gerry McCann were raised almost immediately by an official sent to Praia da Luz due to what he considered to be “inconsistencies” in the couple’s testimonies about the night the four-year-old vanished. The warning was contained in a classified document sent from the Algarve to the Foreign Office days after Madeleine’s disappearance. Details of the letter have been leaked through the British diplomatic mission in Brussels to the respected Belgian newspaper Derniere Heure.
The unnamed diplomat voices his concern about the “confused declarations” as to the whereabouts of Kate and Gerry McCann and their friends in the final hours before Madeleine’s disappearance. He also mentions the couple’s “lack of co-operation” with the Portuguese police in the light of instructions from London suggesting consular staff “overstretch their authority and put pressure on the Portuguese authorities”. The document also asks for confirmation of orders sent by the Foreign Office in London the day before, commanding embassy staff to give “all possible assistance to the McCann couple”.
Diplomats on the Algarve were told the McCanns had to be “accompanied at all times during any contact with the Portuguese police” by a member of consular staff or by British police officers sent out from the UK. The letter, sent just days after Madeleine disappeared, warns of the risks of siding with the McCanns so completely. Excerpts published in a report by La Derniere Heure quote the diplomat as saying: “With the greatest respect, I would like to make you aware of the risks and implications to our relationship with the Portuguese authorities, if you consider the possible involvement of the couple. “Please confirm to me, in the light of these concerns, that we want to continue to be closely involved in the case as was requested in your previous message.”
A huge team of diplomats have been involved in the case since Gerry McCann asked the Foreign Office for help. In an unprecedented move, the then Prime Minister Tony Blair despatched special envoy Sheree Dodd, a former Fleet Street journalist, to Portugal to act as a “media liaison officer” for the McCann family. Direct government communications with the McCanns came to an abrupt halt, however, when the couple were made official suspects in the case in September.
Portuguese detectives believe it is possible Madeleine died as the result of an accident on May 3 in the family’s holiday apartment and that her parents hid and later disposed of her body with the help of their friends. The couple have always said they had nothing to do with their daughter’s disappearance. The Belgian report says it is highly significant that almost all of the diplomats involved at the outset have now been taken off the case.
Special envoy Sheree Dodd has since resigned from the Foreign Office, the British consul in the Algarve Bill Henderson has retired and the British ambassador to Portugal John Buck is no longer in Portugal. Last night the Foreign Office refused to comment on the report.
I think it is likely that particular hare was up and running before the police said "no media".
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 14, 2015, 11:50:05 AM
He called Amaral mad for doing his job. It's in truth of the lie. He said are you mad with all the press here when Amaral wanted to take their clothes for examining. There wouldn't be any press if the McCanns and their friends did what the police told them - No media. Getting the media involved changed this case. You can't investigate the parents the media will find out and all hell will break loose.
John Buck, the British Ambassador in Lisbon at the time of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance went to Portimão to demand that the PJ immediately announce to the media – especially the British media – that the disappearance of Madeleine was an abduction and that her parents, Kate and Gerry McCann were two innocent victims. “Immediately after Madeleine’s disappearance, when we did not yet know whether it was the case of an abduction or a different kind of crime, the PJ were obliged to issue a statement, on 5th May, announcing the abduction thesis”, announced inspector Gonçalo Amaral, emphasising that the statement had been issued in spite of his opposition and that of other inspectors participating in the inquiry.
Gonçalo Amaral was speaking yesterday in Madrid as part of an exclusive interview with SOS Madeleine McCann and Gazeta Digital.
According to sources close to the British Embassy in Lisbon, the Ambassador John Buck, previous to this intervention at the PJ in Faro and Portimão, had already discussed the affair with the Portuguese Minister for Foreign Affairs.
“In a situation like the one we were presented with, in the interest of the child, no possibility would have been discarded, even the possibility concerning the parents, those that were close and the friends. Above all there was not the slightest indication of abduction”, Amaral concluded, emphasising that the “rest of the investigation has proved that”.
“They took advantage of the space we gave them, it was a mistake on our part.”
Also on 5th May 2007, two days after the announcement of Madeleine’s disappearance, the police, according to Amaral, would commit an important error: “We were busy checking all the traces that came with the Ambassador. Traces that were moreover, found to be false”.
New instructions from the regional national directorate of the PJ, given after the intervention of two British diplomats – Ambassador John Buck and Consul Bill Henderson – turned the investigator’s attention away from the McCanns.
Kate and Gerry McCann, for the first and only time, went to hand in clothes to be washed in the Complex laundry, including Madeleine’s clothes, which the inspectors only heard about two days later. Too late, according to Amaral.
“At the time we had not established exactly which clothes Gerry was wearing on the night of the disappearance nor which clothes were handed in to be washed on 5th May”, says Gonçalo Amaral.
It was by means of the statements by various members of staff from the complex, linked to the laundry service, that the inspectors were to learn that the McCanns had their children’s clothes – those of Madeleine and also those of Sean and Amélie – washed. “That would never have happened without the intervention of Mark Warner and, in particular, of the Ambassador. They took advantage of the space we gave them, It was a mistake on our part”, admits Gonçalo Amaral.
“Last Saturday (05/05/2007) I received a bag of clothes brought in by Mark Warner staff, and was told expressly that these belonged to Madeleine’s family – there was adult clothing (male and female) and children’s clothing… “, states one of the laundry workers. Although the laundry worker only remembers a pink skirt belonging to Madeleine, she has no uncertainty in confirming that there were also other clothes belonging to the small British girl, which has also been confirmed to the police by other colleagues.
Daily Express: Madeleine: British Diplomat had doubts about McCanns 3 December 2007 (no longer on-line)
A British diplomat warned the Foreign Office of concerns regarding Madeleine McCann’s parents, it emerged last night. Doubts about Kate and Gerry McCann were raised almost immediately by an official sent to Praia da Luz due to what he considered to be “inconsistencies” in the couple’s testimonies about the night the four-year-old vanished. The warning was contained in a classified document sent from the Algarve to the Foreign Office days after Madeleine’s disappearance. Details of the letter have been leaked through the British diplomatic mission in Brussels to the respected Belgian newspaper Derniere Heure.
The unnamed diplomat voices his concern about the “confused declarations” as to the whereabouts of Kate and Gerry McCann and their friends in the final hours before Madeleine’s disappearance. He also mentions the couple’s “lack of co-operation” with the Portuguese police in the light of instructions from London suggesting consular staff “overstretch their authority and put pressure on the Portuguese authorities”. The document also asks for confirmation of orders sent by the Foreign Office in London the day before, commanding embassy staff to give “all possible assistance to the McCann couple”.
Diplomats on the Algarve were told the McCanns had to be “accompanied at all times during any contact with the Portuguese police” by a member of consular staff or by British police officers sent out from the UK. The letter, sent just days after Madeleine disappeared, warns of the risks of siding with the McCanns so completely. Excerpts published in a report by La Derniere Heure quote the diplomat as saying: “With the greatest respect, I would like to make you aware of the risks and implications to our relationship with the Portuguese authorities, if you consider the possible involvement of the couple. “Please confirm to me, in the light of these concerns, that we want to continue to be closely involved in the case as was requested in your previous message.”
A huge team of diplomats have been involved in the case since Gerry McCann asked the Foreign Office for help. In an unprecedented move, the then Prime Minister Tony Blair despatched special envoy Sheree Dodd, a former Fleet Street journalist, to Portugal to act as a “media liaison officer” for the McCann family. Direct government communications with the McCanns came to an abrupt halt, however, when the couple were made official suspects in the case in September.
Portuguese detectives believe it is possible Madeleine died as the result of an accident on May 3 in the family’s holiday apartment and that her parents hid and later disposed of her body with the help of their friends. The couple have always said they had nothing to do with their daughter’s disappearance. The Belgian report says it is highly significant that almost all of the diplomats involved at the outset have now been taken off the case.
Special envoy Sheree Dodd has since resigned from the Foreign Office, the British consul in the Algarve Bill Henderson has retired and the British ambassador to Portugal John Buck is no longer in Portugal. Last night the Foreign Office refused to comment on the report.
I find this quite amusing. The British ambassador intervening in laundry arrangements?
How would a laundry operator know whose child the clothes belonged to? As far as I'm aware, Mark Warner picked up the tab for anything related to the McCann situation in terms of services.
I find this quite amusting as well. Particularly the last sentence...
A British diplomat warned the Foreign Office of concerns regarding Madeleine McCann’s parents, it emerged last night. Doubts about Kate and Gerry McCann were raised almost immediately by an official sent to Praia da Luz due to what he considered to be “inconsistencies” in the couple’s testimonies about the night the four-year-old vanished. The warning was contained in a classified document sent from the Algarve to the Foreign Office days after Madeleine’s disappearance. Details of the letter have been leaked through the British diplomatic mission in Brussels to the respected Belgian newspaper Derniere Heure.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Brietta on October 14, 2015, 01:27:37 PM
I find this quite amusing. The British ambassador intervening in laundry arrangements?
How would a laundry operator know whose child the clothes belonged to? As far as I'm aware, Mark Warner picked up the tab for anything related to the McCann situation in terms of services.
I find this quite amusting as well. Particularly the last sentence...
A British diplomat warned the Foreign Office of concerns regarding Madeleine McCann’s parents, it emerged last night. Doubts about Kate and Gerry McCann were raised almost immediately by an official sent to Praia da Luz due to what he considered to be “inconsistencies” in the couple’s testimonies about the night the four-year-old vanished. The warning was contained in a classified document sent from the Algarve to the Foreign Office days after Madeleine’s disappearance. Details of the letter have been leaked through the British diplomatic mission in Brussels to the respected Belgian newspaper Derniere Heure.
I didn't bother to read the original post having decided I've got a newly painted wall that needed to be watched drying out which would be far more interesting.
Well done you for persevering.
But if there is anyone out there who places any credence whatsoever on the paragraph which you have highlighted, I think their analytical skills may require some honing.
... and anyway, why wouldn't the British ambassador be interested in the laundry arrangements? It's not as if he was doing anything else was it?
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 14, 2015, 02:56:07 PM
I find this quite amusing. The British ambassador intervening in laundry arrangements?
How would a laundry operator know whose child the clothes belonged to? As far as I'm aware, Mark Warner picked up the tab for anything related to the McCann situation in terms of services.
I find this quite amusting as well. Particularly the last sentence...
A British diplomat warned the Foreign Office of concerns regarding Madeleine McCann’s parents, it emerged last night. Doubts about Kate and Gerry McCann were raised almost immediately by an official sent to Praia da Luz due to what he considered to be “inconsistencies” in the couple’s testimonies about the night the four-year-old vanished. The warning was contained in a classified document sent from the Algarve to the Foreign Office days after Madeleine’s disappearance. Details of the letter have been leaked through the British diplomatic mission in Brussels to the respected Belgian newspaper Derniere Heure.
Glad you find it amusing and we will see how amused you are when it's over that's if you stick around of course. John Buck protected the McCanns because he interfered in the police doing their job.
I didn't bother to read the original post having decided I've got a newly painted wall that needed to be watched drying out which would be far more interesting.
Well done you for persevering.
But if there is anyone out there who places any credence whatsoever on the paragraph which you have highlighted, I think their analytical skills may require some honing.
... and anyway, why wouldn't the British ambassador be interested in the laundry arrangements? It's not as if he was doing anything else was it?
The only bit of that that sounds plausible is that Buck or Henderson did actually pass on information from the PJ about "inconsistencies" as a matter of course. Hopefully, the British diplomats would also be aware of potential communication and translation issues...
What I find somewhat less plausible is that the diplomatic mission in Brussels would have had a copy of a confidential memo between a diplomat in PT and the Home Office, let alone leak it to Levy, whose blog was hosted by the news outlet in question.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 14, 2015, 03:14:48 PM
Wkileaks
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id353.html
The meeting between US ambassador Al Hoffman and the British ambassador, Alexander Wykeham Ellis, took place a fortnight after Kate and Gerry McCann were formally declared arguidos, or suspects, by Portuguese police. The McCanns have said that there was "absolutely no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's disappearance whatsoever."
In a diplomatic cable marked confidential, the US ambassador reported: "Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working co-operatively."
The only bit of that that sounds plausible is that Buck or Henderson did actually pass on information from the PJ about "inconsistencies" as a matter of course. Hopefully, the British diplomats would also be aware of potential communication and translation issues...
What I find somewhat less plausible is that the diplomatic mission in Brussels would have had a copy of a confidential memo between a diplomat in PT and the Home Office, let alone leak it to Levy, whose blog was hosted by the news outlet in question.
Perhaps unfairly, as soon as I see "respected" prefixing a newspaper my suspicions are raised. Now that I hear Levy's name mentioned I am convinced, that man seems to be at the beginning and the heart of everything to cause trouble in Madeleine's case. Maybe the sports reports are kosher as for anything else, if they are getting a 'world exclusive' they will print.
I'm not sure anything at all would have been mentioned about "inconsistencies" or anything else. The investigation were playing things pretty close to the chest and the Brit officials were a big part of the paranoia.
I think the question isn't so much "did he misrepresent?", it is more was it intentional or unintentional?
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Carana on October 14, 2015, 03:46:27 PM
The meeting between US ambassador Al Hoffman and the British ambassador, Alexander Wykeham Ellis, took place a fortnight after Kate and Gerry McCann were formally declared arguidos, or suspects, by Portuguese police. The McCanns have said that there was "absolutely no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's disappearance whatsoever."
In a diplomatic cable marked confidential, the US ambassador reported: "Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working co-operatively."
Perhaps unfairly, as soon as I see "respected" prefixing a newspaper my suspicions are raised. Now that I hear Levy's name mentioned I am convinced, that man seems to be at the beginning and the heart of everything to cause trouble in Madeleine's case. Maybe the sports reports are kosher as for anything else, if they are getting a 'world exclusive' they will print.
I'm not sure anything at all would have been mentioned about "inconsistencies" or anything else. The investigation were playing things pretty close to the chest and the Brit officials were a big part of the paranoia.
I think the question isn't so much "did he misrepresent?", it is more was it intentional or unintentional?
I have no idea how much Amaral was personally responsible for the constant drip feed of half-baked "leaks", but they happened on his watch. An internal inquiry could have put a stop to it had he wanted to (Rebelo managed it).
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: mercury on October 14, 2015, 08:56:44 PM
He called Amaral mad for doing his job. It's in truth of the lie. He said are you mad with all the press here when Amaral wanted to take their clothes for examining. There wouldn't be any press if the McCanns and their friends did what the police told them - No media. Getting the media involved changed this case. You can't investigate the parents the media will find out and all hell will break loose.
John Buck, the British Ambassador in Lisbon at the time of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance went to Portimão to demand that the PJ immediately announce to the media – especially the British media – that the disappearance of Madeleine was an abduction and that her parents, Kate and Gerry McCann were two innocent victims. “Immediately after Madeleine’s disappearance, when we did not yet know whether it was the case of an abduction or a different kind of crime, the PJ were obliged to issue a statement, on 5th May, announcing the abduction thesis”, announced inspector Gonçalo Amaral, emphasising that the statement had been issued in spite of his opposition and that of other inspectors participating in the inquiry.
Gonçalo Amaral was speaking yesterday in Madrid as part of an exclusive interview with SOS Madeleine McCann and Gazeta Digital.
According to sources close to the British Embassy in Lisbon, the Ambassador John Buck, previous to this intervention at the PJ in Faro and Portimão, had already discussed the affair with the Portuguese Minister for Foreign Affairs.
“In a situation like the one we were presented with, in the interest of the child, no possibility would have been discarded, even the possibility concerning the parents, those that were close and the friends. Above all there was not the slightest indication of abduction”, Amaral concluded, emphasising that the “rest of the investigation has proved that”.
“They took advantage of the space we gave them, it was a mistake on our part.”
Also on 5th May 2007, two days after the announcement of Madeleine’s disappearance, the police, according to Amaral, would commit an important error: “We were busy checking all the traces that came with the Ambassador. Traces that were moreover, found to be false”.
New instructions from the regional national directorate of the PJ, given after the intervention of two British diplomats – Ambassador John Buck and Consul Bill Henderson – turned the investigator’s attention away from the McCanns.
Kate and Gerry McCann, for the first and only time, went to hand in clothes to be washed in the Complex laundry, including Madeleine’s clothes, which the inspectors only heard about two days later. Too late, according to Amaral.
“At the time we had not established exactly which clothes Gerry was wearing on the night of the disappearance nor which clothes were handed in to be washed on 5th May”, says Gonçalo Amaral.
It was by means of the statements by various members of staff from the complex, linked to the laundry service, that the inspectors were to learn that the McCanns had their children’s clothes – those of Madeleine and also those of Sean and Amélie – washed. “That would never have happened without the intervention of Mark Warner and, in particular, of the Ambassador. They took advantage of the space we gave them, It was a mistake on our part”, admits Gonçalo Amaral.
“Last Saturday (05/05/2007) I received a bag of clothes brought in by Mark Warner staff, and was told expressly that these belonged to Madeleine’s family – there was adult clothing (male and female) and children’s clothing… “, states one of the laundry workers. Although the laundry worker only remembers a pink skirt belonging to Madeleine, she has no uncertainty in confirming that there were also other clothes belonging to the small British girl, which has also been confirmed to the police by other colleagues.
Daily Express: Madeleine: British Diplomat had doubts about McCanns 3 December 2007 (no longer on-line)
A British diplomat warned the Foreign Office of concerns regarding Madeleine McCann’s parents, it emerged last night. Doubts about Kate and Gerry McCann were raised almost immediately by an official sent to Praia da Luz due to what he considered to be “inconsistencies” in the couple’s testimonies about the night the four-year-old vanished. The warning was contained in a classified document sent from the Algarve to the Foreign Office days after Madeleine’s disappearance. Details of the letter have been leaked through the British diplomatic mission in Brussels to the respected Belgian newspaper Derniere Heure.
The unnamed diplomat voices his concern about the “confused declarations” as to the whereabouts of Kate and Gerry McCann and their friends in the final hours before Madeleine’s disappearance. He also mentions the couple’s “lack of co-operation” with the Portuguese police in the light of instructions from London suggesting consular staff “overstretch their authority and put pressure on the Portuguese authorities”. The document also asks for confirmation of orders sent by the Foreign Office in London the day before, commanding embassy staff to give “all possible assistance to the McCann couple”.
Diplomats on the Algarve were told the McCanns had to be “accompanied at all times during any contact with the Portuguese police” by a member of consular staff or by British police officers sent out from the UK. The letter, sent just days after Madeleine disappeared, warns of the risks of siding with the McCanns so completely. Excerpts published in a report by La Derniere Heure quote the diplomat as saying: “With the greatest respect, I would like to make you aware of the risks and implications to our relationship with the Portuguese authorities, if you consider the possible involvement of the couple. “Please confirm to me, in the light of these concerns, that we want to continue to be closely involved in the case as was requested in your previous message.”
A huge team of diplomats have been involved in the case since Gerry McCann asked the Foreign Office for help. In an unprecedented move, the then Prime Minister Tony Blair despatched special envoy Sheree Dodd, a former Fleet Street journalist, to Portugal to act as a “media liaison officer” for the McCann family. Direct government communications with the McCanns came to an abrupt halt, however, when the couple were made official suspects in the case in September.
Portuguese detectives believe it is possible Madeleine died as the result of an accident on May 3 in the family’s holiday apartment and that her parents hid and later disposed of her body with the help of their friends. The couple have always said they had nothing to do with their daughter’s disappearance. The Belgian report says it is highly significant that almost all of the diplomats involved at the outset have now been taken off the case.
Special envoy Sheree Dodd has since resigned from the Foreign Office, the British consul in the Algarve Bill Henderson has retired and the British ambassador to Portugal John Buck is no longer in Portugal. Last night the Foreign Office refused to comment on the report.
Thanks PF. He had no business interfering like that. That's not an ambassadors job! Ho hum.
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: Carana on October 15, 2015, 08:09:20 AM
He called Amaral mad for doing his job. It's in truth of the lie. He said are you mad with all the press here when Amaral wanted to take their clothes for examining. There wouldn't be any press if the McCanns and their friends did what the police told them - No media. Getting the media involved changed this case. You can't investigate the parents the media will find out and all hell will break loose.
John Buck, the British Ambassador in Lisbon at the time of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance went to Portimão to demand that the PJ immediately announce to the media – especially the British media – that the disappearance of Madeleine was an abduction and that her parents, Kate and Gerry McCann were two innocent victims. “Immediately after Madeleine’s disappearance, when we did not yet know whether it was the case of an abduction or a different kind of crime, the PJ were obliged to issue a statement, on 5th May, announcing the abduction thesis”, announced inspector Gonçalo Amaral, emphasising that the statement had been issued in spite of his opposition and that of other inspectors participating in the inquiry.
Gonçalo Amaral was speaking yesterday in Madrid as part of an exclusive interview with SOS Madeleine McCann and Gazeta Digital.
According to sources close to the British Embassy in Lisbon, the Ambassador John Buck, previous to this intervention at the PJ in Faro and Portimão, had already discussed the affair with the Portuguese Minister for Foreign Affairs.
“In a situation like the one we were presented with, in the interest of the child, no possibility would have been discarded, even the possibility concerning the parents, those that were close and the friends. Above all there was not the slightest indication of abduction”, Amaral concluded, emphasising that the “rest of the investigation has proved that”.
“They took advantage of the space we gave them, it was a mistake on our part.”
Also on 5th May 2007, two days after the announcement of Madeleine’s disappearance, the police, according to Amaral, would commit an important error: “We were busy checking all the traces that came with the Ambassador. Traces that were moreover, found to be false”.
New instructions from the regional national directorate of the PJ, given after the intervention of two British diplomats – Ambassador John Buck and Consul Bill Henderson – turned the investigator’s attention away from the McCanns.
Kate and Gerry McCann, for the first and only time, went to hand in clothes to be washed in the Complex laundry, including Madeleine’s clothes, which the inspectors only heard about two days later. Too late, according to Amaral.
“At the time we had not established exactly which clothes Gerry was wearing on the night of the disappearance nor which clothes were handed in to be washed on 5th May”, says Gonçalo Amaral.
It was by means of the statements by various members of staff from the complex, linked to the laundry service, that the inspectors were to learn that the McCanns had their children’s clothes – those of Madeleine and also those of Sean and Amélie – washed. “That would never have happened without the intervention of Mark Warner and, in particular, of the Ambassador. They took advantage of the space we gave them, It was a mistake on our part”, admits Gonçalo Amaral.
“Last Saturday (05/05/2007) I received a bag of clothes brought in by Mark Warner staff, and was told expressly that these belonged to Madeleine’s family – there was adult clothing (male and female) and children’s clothing… “, states one of the laundry workers. Although the laundry worker only remembers a pink skirt belonging to Madeleine, she has no uncertainty in confirming that there were also other clothes belonging to the small British girl, which has also been confirmed to the police by other colleagues.
Daily Express: Madeleine: British Diplomat had doubts about McCanns 3 December 2007 (no longer on-line)
A British diplomat warned the Foreign Office of concerns regarding Madeleine McCann’s parents, it emerged last night. Doubts about Kate and Gerry McCann were raised almost immediately by an official sent to Praia da Luz due to what he considered to be “inconsistencies” in the couple’s testimonies about the night the four-year-old vanished. The warning was contained in a classified document sent from the Algarve to the Foreign Office days after Madeleine’s disappearance. Details of the letter have been leaked through the British diplomatic mission in Brussels to the respected Belgian newspaper Derniere Heure.
The unnamed diplomat voices his concern about the “confused declarations” as to the whereabouts of Kate and Gerry McCann and their friends in the final hours before Madeleine’s disappearance. He also mentions the couple’s “lack of co-operation” with the Portuguese police in the light of instructions from London suggesting consular staff “overstretch their authority and put pressure on the Portuguese authorities”. The document also asks for confirmation of orders sent by the Foreign Office in London the day before, commanding embassy staff to give “all possible assistance to the McCann couple”.
Diplomats on the Algarve were told the McCanns had to be “accompanied at all times during any contact with the Portuguese police” by a member of consular staff or by British police officers sent out from the UK. The letter, sent just days after Madeleine disappeared, warns of the risks of siding with the McCanns so completely. Excerpts published in a report by La Derniere Heure quote the diplomat as saying: “With the greatest respect, I would like to make you aware of the risks and implications to our relationship with the Portuguese authorities, if you consider the possible involvement of the couple. “Please confirm to me, in the light of these concerns, that we want to continue to be closely involved in the case as was requested in your previous message.”
A huge team of diplomats have been involved in the case since Gerry McCann asked the Foreign Office for help. In an unprecedented move, the then Prime Minister Tony Blair despatched special envoy Sheree Dodd, a former Fleet Street journalist, to Portugal to act as a “media liaison officer” for the McCann family. Direct government communications with the McCanns came to an abrupt halt, however, when the couple were made official suspects in the case in September.
Portuguese detectives believe it is possible Madeleine died as the result of an accident on May 3 in the family’s holiday apartment and that her parents hid and later disposed of her body with the help of their friends. The couple have always said they had nothing to do with their daughter’s disappearance. The Belgian report says it is highly significant that almost all of the diplomats involved at the outset have now been taken off the case.
Special envoy Sheree Dodd has since resigned from the Foreign Office, the British consul in the Algarve Bill Henderson has retired and the British ambassador to Portugal John Buck is no longer in Portugal. Last night the Foreign Office refused to comment on the report.
I'm afraid I would like to see some independent confirmation of what Buck is alleged to have said.
As far as I can tell, the FO offered help by: a) helping PT deal with the media b) setting up liaison with UK police b) sending out FLOs to support the family, as is normal in these "difficult cases".
Title: Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
Post by: pathfinder73 on October 15, 2015, 07:19:03 PM
A day in the real investigation done by Amaral's team
Saturday May 5th
The accommodation we are occupying in the town centre rapidly becomes overcrowded: we need more sheets and blankets. Beds are allocated; some investigators have to sleep on sofas, others on the floor. Astonishingly, in this place, however jam-packed, total silence reigns. We all need to rest. Our dreams are disturbed, our worries are multiplying. Thirty-four hours after Madeleine's disappearance, we tackle our second day of the investigation. In this apartment of temporary refuge, it's the morning bustle; we mustn't lie around. In spite of the lack of sleep, no one shows any sign of fatigue: on the contrary, we are all in a hurry to getting back to work and impatiently wait our turn outside the bathroom.
Before going out, we check that there are no journalists in the area. In spite of their pugnacity, they were never able to find our hiding place. A stop for breakfast, and the day begins. Destination DIC (Department of Criminal Investigation.)
POLISH LEAD IN SAGRES
Hundreds of statements continue to be gathered in Vila da Luz. All the people of the area are interviewed: resort employees, tourists, play leaders from the crèches, residents. Most of them will be of no use to us, but none must be neglected.
From information from Sagres, we learn that an individual has been surprised on Mareta beach taking photos of several children and in particular of a little girl aged 4, blonde with blue eyes, who looks like Madeleine. It was the little girl's father who noticed him. This 40 year-old man, wearing glasses, tells the investigators that the photographer tried to kidnap his daughter in the afternoon of April 26th in Sagres.
He allegedly then fled in a hired car with a woman in the passenger seat. The stranger did not look like a tourist; brown hair down to his collar, wearing cream-coloured trousers and jacket and shoes of a classic style. This report reminds us of the individual encountered by Jane Tanner in the streets of Vila da Luz on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance.
Thanks to the father's composure, he managed to take a photograph of the vehicle. It's not very clear and does not allow us to make out the number plate, but we succeed, nonetheless, in finding the car. The car hire firm provides us with the identity of the driver. He is a forty-year-old Polish man, who is traveling with his wife. They arrived in Portugal on April 28th, from Berlin. At Faro airport, they hired a car and put up in an apartment in Budens, near Praia da Luz. Unfortunately, on May 5th, at 7am, they had already left, taking with them their camera and all the photos from their holiday. We ask the German police, through Interpol, to monitor them as soon as they arrive in Berlin. All the passengers are questioned, but no one has seen a child looking like Madeleine. In Berlin, the couple take the train to return to Poland. Thus, the Polish trail comes to an end. We would like to have seen their photos...but that proved impossible.
A lead is only valuable in as far as it is followed to the end, which was not the case with this one. We will realise that we shouldn't have ruled it out so quickly, and that it is still a topic of interest.
MORE LEADS, STILL NO RESULTS
Other individuals were seen lurking around the apartment, acting suspiciously, shortly before the events. On May 2nd or 3rd, according to an English tourist, an individual in shabby clothing was staring fixedly in the direction of the apartment. He went off in a white van. Other witness statements go in the same direction. For each, we set in motion the research procedures which sometimes include the development of an Identikit picture.
On the outskirts of Lagos, in the direction of Aljezur, there is a Gypsy encampment. Of course, traveling people are no longer thought of as child-stealers. Nevertheless, it is important to make sure they have nothing to do with the case before they hit the road again. As soon as they are informed of our searches, they collaborate voluntarily and let the agents do their work and conduct a search of their tents and their cars. No one has seen little Madeleine in the area.
Throughout the day, numerous apartments are visited in the resort and neighbouring areas: the investigators search more than 400, without result.
QUALMS ABOUT INVESTIGATING THE McCANNS; THE THEORY OF ABDUCTION GAINS GROUND.
Someone puts forward the hypothesis according to which Madeleine would have died in her apartment, and that a member of the group would have removed her. It's a possibility, but nothing so far, no evidence, happens to support that theory.
The McCanns are put up with David Payne. We want to search the accommodation of the family friends to try to pick up Madeleine's clothes, especially those she was wearing on May 3rd at 5.35pm when she returned from the day centre with her mother and the twins. Evidently, this initiative is not widely supported. The British ambassador meets with the team directing the investigation. The political and the diplomatic seem to want to prevent us from freely doing our work.
- I'm sure this check is necessary.
- The clothes? Are you mad? if I understand you properly, you want to go into the apartment to take clothes to have them analysed?
- Yes. What's the problem? It's a perfectly normal procedure in cases like this.
- Of course, but with this media hype...I don't think I have ever in my life seen so many journalists....And I didn't come down in the last shower.
THE PJ'S DIFFICULTIES IN COMMUNICATING WITH THE MEDIA; THE PRO McCANN PRESS OFFICE.
From the start of the investigation, we ask for the presence of a press attaché to accompany us and take on communicating with the media. The Justice Minister fulfills this request. Very quickly, however, this decision is contested. The reaction of the press itself is feared and public opinion, which might interpret that presence with direct intervention in the investigation by the minister....Finally, the person retained is an investigator, who is not working on the case, speaks English and has some experience in this field. With hindsight, it can be said that it wasn't a good decision. In fact, after the reading of our first press release and the parents' press conferences, the press let fly.
We were convinced that the people directly involved in the investigation should remain distanced from the media whirlwind. We needed help: the police judiciaire would have to engage staff to dissect published articles, focusing on the analysis of press statements from the parents and their friends.But that didn't happen. The media circus was in full swing: all the time, new articles, live TV, a growing number of journalists running around the streets of Vila da Luz.
It didn't seem normal to us either that a couple whose child has just disappeared engages press attachés to deal with their relations with the media. It is not a question here of minimising the role of the means of communication and ignoring that a subject like this stirs up a lot of curiosity, but that constant preoccupation with the management of their communication by the parents, appeared to us, to say the least, astonishing.
TELEPHONE CALLS ON THE NIGHT OF THE DISAPPEARANCE.
The tracking of Portuguese and foreign paedophiles - the majority English - residing in the region or simply on holiday, continues to be checked. In spite of the kilometres covered, the interviews and the searches carried out, there is nothing concrete that leads us to suspect any of them.
The investigators continue to deal with the information collected. They look into all the statements, in particular those of the Ocean Club employees, and go through the lists of telephone calls that have been made available to them.
We must also check all communication via mobile phones during the night of May 3rd. It is possible that the abductor had used a mobile. We locate the relay antennae of various operators covering the sector in order to obtain the summary of calls and messages made or received that transited their antennae. Finally, the only suspicious communications are those involving Robert Murat, a person who is central to this case, who will later be placed under investigation.
The walls of the crisis unit are little by little covered in analytical charts, time-series charts, sketches, plans, task lists, photos and other important elements with, at the centre, the photo of Madeleine, to always remind us of the object of our mission.
LOG OF CALLS ON GERRY McCANN'S MOBILE PHONE DELETED
Between 11pm and 3 in the morning, all members of the investigation team meet in the crisis unit; in the same smoke filled atmosphere, we take stock of the situation. Some don't agree with the police judiciaire's press release and think that the information should not have been disclosed, even by way of official press releases. Others think it's possible to interpret the visit by the British ambassador as a form of British government intervention, which may not be impartial. Is it usual for them to get involved with cases of this kind or is it specific to this case, and why? Only they hold the answer.
Until now, the results have hardly been conclusive. New means - in all other investigations, they would already have been put in place - must be deployed.
- Why not monitor and tap the phones of the parents and friends? Their statements are far from convincing. The story about the window is unsound, and Jane's witness statement is not convincing either.
- In that way new details could be obtained.
- We have already discussed it. That would be ideal...Only, we have to get the judge to give us authorisation with the scant details we have at our disposal. And if the parents get wind of it, we risk having the sky fall on our heads.
- In a kidnapping case with a ransom demand, that procedure would be normal, at least for the monitoring of the parents' phone calls.
- That's for certain, but in our case, that comes back to practically accusing them. Further, we don't even know if there's been a crime.
- Yes, I am well aware, but I insist. This would allow them to be ruled out.
The questions raised are relevant. Telephone taps would also allow unfounded suspicions to be destroyed. In our legal system, that procedure is only used with the sole purpose of gathering evidence. At this stage of the investigation, it's very tricky for us to express our doubts as to the sincerity of the parents and their friends.
On May 4th, the parents authorise us to check the phone calls logged on their mobile.
- Here's a copy of the summary of calls.
- I only have that of the couple. We have yet to receive the summary from BTS
- OK, what have we got?
- Do you see what I see?
- Yes, I think so: between April 27th and May 4th, Kate did not make any calls. Hum...
- None either, between 11.22am and 11.17pm on the night of the disappearance.
- Kate mustn't like making telephone calls...
- For Gerald, there's nothing before May 4th at exactly 12.15am
- What does that mean? They never made phone calls then?
- Wait, there's something here. Look at the number at the top of the list.
- Yes, so?
- On her telephone, her husbands' number is logged: she called him on May 3rd at 11.17pm, but on Gerald's, nothing, no trace of that call!
- How can that be explained?
- It's simple as anything: the list of calls has been deleted.
- Always the same old question: why?
Summing up: the first phone calls were exchanged one hour after the disappearance. It could be imagined that in that lapse of time, they were busy looking for their daughter. Nevertheless, it's astonishing that they didn't need to speak to each other at such a difficult time.
Later I learn that the English secret service had already placed the couple under telephone surveillance. If that's true, the Portuguese police were never informed.
(* Base Transceiver Station of mobile phone operators)
THE POLISH TRAIL LEADS TO AN IMPASSE
Sunday May 6th
Meeting room. Seventy-two hours have gone by since the disappearance. We are going through a difficult time: in spite of the searches carried out on the ground and the considerable means deployed, we haven't found Madeleine. The day gets off to a difficult start with bad news from Poland. From all accounts, the police badly interpreted our request for collaboration; all they did was approach the couple and verify that Madeleine was not with them, but didn't seize either their photographic equipment or the photos taken during their holiday. Another lead that remains pending. Perhaps it would have led to the discovery of a paedophile ring.
We are seeking to piece together the couple's itinerary, to find out if anyone noticed them in the vicinity of Praia da Luz, to establish any relationship between them and Maddie's disappearance. We circulate a photo - which we obtained thanks to a surveillance camera in a Lisbon shopping mall - amongst holiday-makers, clients and employees of Praia da Luz restaurants. Fruitlessly. Nobody saw them.
On the other hand, employees of the restaurant they usually went to, in the Burgau-Budens area, remember them: the woman was usually in a bad mood, and both wore clothes totally inappropriate to the place and the time of year. The forensic police won't be able to investigate their hire vehicle, which we managed to locate, because it has already been rented out again. All that's left to us is to find the bin in which the cleaning team dumped the rubbish left in the vehicle. Analyses of the rubbish reveals nothing. Fortunately, no one else has yet occupied the apartment the couple stayed in - it's low season. We go ahead with a thorough search, looking for evidence of a child's presence: shoe prints, fingerprints or footprints. Nothing. We then gather various hair samples - doubtless coming from adults - and notice drops of blood on a kitchen unit. Nothing conclusive. It's probably from an everyday domestic accident.
In the course of a meeting, I ask the director what follow-up to bring to this case, now that the person who took the photos knows he is being sought. The director gives a common sense response.
- It's unfortunate, of course. However, they were never seen in Praia da Luz, much less close to the apartment....The father of the little girl in Sagres was wearing spectacles and we aren't 100% sure of the accuracy of his description.
- Yes, but he took photos of the car. Yet again, it could quite well belong to someone else, but...
- If, in the course of the investigation, there are update details on this lead, we will request a rogatory letter and we will go to Poland to interview them and conduct a search of their apartment.
We doubt that a rogatory letter would be of any use to us. The way this lead was handled makes us think not, but we can't hold it against the Polish police, who collaborated as well as they could.
We refocus our efforts on other leads. Information on more individuals behaving suspiciously continues to flood in.
IN THE REAL WORLD
"The child, [..........] shall, wherever possible, grow up in the care and under the responsibility of his parents, and, in any case, in an atmosphere of affection and of moral and material security;"
United Nations Declaration of The Rights of The Child, 1959