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: Admin on January 31, 2016, 11:17:27 AM
Title: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Admin on January 31, 2016, 11:17:27 AM
Several members have requested a new thread in order to discuss the assertion by the Chief Prosecutor in Portugal within the Archive Report to the effect that "the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did". It has been pointed out that Judge Emilia Melo e Castro chose to include this assertion within her Judgement of 27 April 2015 in the Goncalo Amaral v McCanns & Others damages trial.
First of all and to assist readers the original transcripts are linked below:
The Final Police Report by Inspector João Carlos (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm)
The Archive Report by the Republic's Prosecutor José de Magalhaes e Menezes and Joint General Prosecutor Joao Melchior Gomes. (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm)
The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral Trial in Lisbon - Judgement dated 27 April 2015 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.msg239337#msg239337)
Background to the aforementioned assertion can be traced to the final police report which includes the following:
On page 2412, is the interview with PAMELA FENN, who relates several details, of which, though not clarifying the facts, are elucidating. PAMELA FENN lives on the first floor of the residential block, above the apartment occupied by the McCANN family. She related that, on 1 May 2007, two days before the disappearance, at about 22h30, she heard a child crying, which by the sound was MADELEINE. The child continued weeping for one hour and 15 minutes, until the parent’s arrival (she heard the door sounds), at about 23h45. This witness places in cause the allegation (by the parents) of the daily routine of visits every 30 minutes to check the children who had been left on their own.
The Archive Report refers to the above observation in the following terms:
Par E
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
Par G
Pamela Fenn, who resides on the residential block's first floor, above the apartment that was occupied by the McCann family, clarified that on the 1st of May 2007, two days before her disappearance, at around 10.30 p.m., she heard a child crying, which from the sound would be MADELEINE and that she cried for an hour and fifteen minutes, until her parents arrived, at around 11.57 p.m.
This shows that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children, although not in a temerarious, or gross, manner.
If said guard duty had been observed, in the possibility of this being an abduction, as was insistently mentioned and continues to be mentioned and is admissible to have happened, its occurrence might eventually have been rendered inviable.
More recently Judge Emilia Melo e Castro, presiding over the McCann v Goncalo Amaral trial referenced in her Judgement:
Par 15 (5) In the archiving report, 21.07.08
"We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain not clarified."(...)
"This shows that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children, although not in a reckless, or gross, manner" (...)
The above claim which originated with the Portuguese police, stated as fact by the Republic's Prosecutor and more recently referenced by the Judge in the damages trial requires little clarification. The language might be convoluted but the message was clear.
Please discuss.
202
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Carana on January 31, 2016, 05:10:32 PM
There was only Mrs Fenn's statement to go off that Madeleine had been crying for over an hour. If the PJ had done a sound reconstruction of that with her, or even contacted the friend she'd phoned to verify the date, there might have been a bit more substance. As it stands, it's not clear who she heard, nor even whether she heard more than one child over the course of the evening.
If you want a conviction, then don't bother to cross-check.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Angelo222 on January 31, 2016, 05:33:34 PM
The Portuguese judge included the observation by the senior prosecutor within the Archve Report and placed it within the proven facts section.
I would call this a revelation moment!
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on January 31, 2016, 05:46:04 PM
Inferred from that which the judge implied. It's now a question of whether the inference drawn was reasonable in light of the implication.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on January 31, 2016, 06:29:44 PM
The Portuguese judge included the observation by the senior prosecutor within the Archve Report and placed it within the proven facts section.
I would call this a revelation moment!
I would like to know what evidence was considered by the Portuguese judge to arrive at the conclusion that the McCanns lied about their checks - witness testimony? CCTV? What exactly?
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: ferryman on January 31, 2016, 06:35:14 PM
I would like to know what evidence was considered by the Portuguese judge to arrive at the conclusion that the McCanns lied about their checks - witness testimony? CCTV? What exactly?
Me too.
There is an abundance of evidence of checks by the whole group, including by waiters who recall having to return meals to the kitchen to re-heat because various members of the group were off checking the children, Jez Wikins' conversation with Gerry outside the apartment on the occasion of Gerry's check, the recollection of Steven Carpenter, who was in the restaurant the night Madeleine vanished and much else ....
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Mr Gray on January 31, 2016, 06:35:47 PM
I would like to know what evidence was considered by the Portuguese judge to arrive at the conclusion that the McCanns lied about their checks - witness testimony? CCTV? What exactly?
the trial was held in public and every witness statement is on record,,,the checks were never once discussed at the trial...never mind anything being proved
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on January 31, 2016, 08:12:04 PM
This appeared in the Archiving Report also, why did the Damages Judge not repeat it in her judgement? Did she decide it was a false statement?
Quote
On the 3rd of May 2007, at around 10 p.m., at the Ocean Club, in Praia da Luz, Kate Healy – like her, her husband Gerald and their friends, while dining at the Tapas, did with a periodicity that has not been rigorously established – headed for apartment G5A, in order to check on her three children, who had been left there, asleep;
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Mr Gray on January 31, 2016, 09:24:52 PM
Pamela Fenn, who resides on the residential block's first floor, above the apartment that was occupied by the McCann family, clarified that on the 1st of May 2007, two days before her disappearance, at around 10.30 p.m., she heard a child crying, which from the sound would be MADELEINE and that she cried for an hour and fifteen minutes, until her parents arrived, at around 11.57 p.m.
This shows that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children, although not in a temerarious, or gross, manner.
so it seems it is a proven fact based on Mrs Fenns statement...what an absolute load of rubbish..
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Angelo222 on January 31, 2016, 09:34:01 PM
They didn't check on them like they afterwards declared. Maybe something lost in translation?
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Mr Gray on January 31, 2016, 10:06:38 PM
They didn't check on them like they afterwards declared. Maybe something lost in translation?
based on what evidence...based on mrs Fenn....that's it
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Carana on January 31, 2016, 10:46:08 PM
What she considered to be proven fact is that the passages she quoted are in the prosecutor's report. Further up she also quoted some of TdA's "anaysis" as well. She wasn't making any judgement as to whether what is written is accurate or not. That wasn't what she was there to do.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Mr Gray on January 31, 2016, 10:48:27 PM
for angelo..... What she considered to be proven fact is that the passages she quoted are in the prosecutor's report. Further up she also quoted some of TdA's "anaysis" as well. She wasn't making any judgement as to whether what is written is accurate or not. That wasn't what she was there to do.
and for what its worth...that's why she wasn't interested in Gerry's statement re the dogs...because as carana says..... She wasn't making any judgement as to whether what is written is accurate or not. That wasn't what she was there to do
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Angelo222 on January 31, 2016, 11:01:35 PM
for angelo..... What she considered to be proven fact is that the passages she quoted are in the prosecutor's report. Further up she also quoted some of TdA's "anaysis" as well. She wasn't making any judgement as to whether what is written is accurate or not. That wasn't what she was there to do.
and for what its worth...that's why she wasn't interested in Gerry's statement re the dogs...because as carana says..... She wasn't making any judgement as to whether what is written is accurate or not. That wasn't what she was there to do
Glad we got that sorted but the observation stands albeit that it was the Republics Prosecutor who made it with the recent trial judge merely referencing it. I hasten to add, I hardly think she would have included such a comment had she not been content that it was valid.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Admin on February 01, 2016, 12:03:21 AM
The judge must have found the comment to be of sufficient significance otherwise why reproduce it in her own judgement document? Why reproduce extracts at all, its not as if they were precedents handed down from a previous trial?
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 01, 2016, 07:39:05 AM
The judge must have found the comment to be of sufficient significance otherwise why reproduce it in her own judgement document? Why reproduce extracts at all, its not as if they were precedents handed down from a previous trial?
what we know is that the list of "proven facts" contain things that are not proven...Carana has explained why. They may well be in the judgement simply because amaral's team raised them in his defence.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 01, 2016, 08:06:15 AM
The judge must have found the comment to be of sufficient significance otherwise why reproduce it in her own judgement document? Why reproduce extracts at all, its not as if they were precedents handed down from a previous trial?
Was it the McCanns on trial or Amaral? And why? There's a clue in there which answers the question (for the umpteenth time!)
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Eleanor on February 01, 2016, 08:08:55 AM
what we know is that the list of "proven facts" contain things that are not proven...Carana has explained why. They may well be in the judgement simply because amaral's team raised them in his defence.
It is all quite simple to me. It was not the remit of The Judge to decide whether or not these things were true, only whether or not they were stated in The Files.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Admin on February 01, 2016, 01:37:08 PM
I am reintroducing this topic with a new opening post to reflect previous observations.
Admin
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: ferryman on February 01, 2016, 02:24:47 PM
Several members have requested a new thread in order to discuss the assertion by the Chief Prosecutor in Portugal within the Archive Report to the effect that "the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did". It has been pointed out that Judge Emilia Melo e Castro chose to include this assertion within her Judgement of 27 April 2015 in the Goncalo Amaral v McCanns & Others damages trial.
First of all and to assist readers the original transcripts are linked below:
The Final Police Report by Inspector João Carlos (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm)
The Archive Report by the Republic's Prosecutor José de Magalhaes e Menezes and Joint General Prosecutor Joao Melchior Gomes. (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm)
The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral Trial in Lisbon - Judgement dated 27 April 2015 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.msg239337#msg239337)
Background to the aforementioned assertion can be traced to the final police report which includes the following:
On page 2412, is the interview with PAMELA FENN, who relates several details, of which, though not clarifying the facts, are elucidating. PAMELA FENN lives on the first floor of the residential block, above the apartment occupied by the McCANN family. She related that, on 1 May 2007, two days before the disappearance, at about 22h30, she heard a child crying, which by the sound was MADELEINE. The child continued weeping for one hour and 15 minutes, until the parent’s arrival (she heard the door sounds), at about 23h45. This witness places in cause the allegation (by the parents) of the daily routine of visits every 30 minutes to check the children who had been left on their own.
The Archive Report refers to the above observation in the following terms:
Par E
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
Par G
Pamela Fenn, who resides on the residential block's first floor, above the apartment that was occupied by the McCann family, clarified that on the 1st of May 2007, two days before her disappearance, at around 10.30 p.m., she heard a child crying, which from the sound would be MADELEINE and that she cried for an hour and fifteen minutes, until her parents arrived, at around 11.57 p.m.
This shows that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children, although not in a temerarious, or gross, manner.
If said guard duty had been observed, in the possibility of this being an abduction, as was insistently mentioned and continues to be mentioned and is admissible to have happened, its occurrence might eventually have been rendered inviable.
More recently Judge Emilia Melo e Castro, presiding over the McCann v Goncalo Amaral trial referenced in her Judgement:
Par 15 (5) In the archiving report, 21.07.08
"We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain not clarified."(...)
"This shows that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children, although not in a reckless, or gross, manner" (...)
The above claim which originated with the Portuguese police, stated as fact by the Republic's Prosecutor and more recently referenced by the Judge in the damages trial requires little clarification. The language might be convoluted but the message was clear.
Please discuss.
19
Quote
From the 2nd day of their stay onwards, the couple had dinner at the "Tapas" Restaurant, with the rest of the group, while all of the children stayed asleep alone in their apartments, with the surveillance initially being made by each couple, whose members took turns in checking the children, and as the days went by, each member who went to check his children would take the chance and check on the rest of the children, with the exception of the Payne couple, that possessed their own technological control system, through baby listening monitors, an issue that we will discuss in more detail further ahead.
(Portuguese prosecutors)
End of debate, surely?
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 01, 2016, 02:48:00 PM
So you think the McCann's told the truth about the checking system ?
Can you remind us of how many times on May the 3rd, either of them checked and/or viewed their children directly after going to wine and dine ?
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on February 01, 2016, 02:49:25 PM
The quote you gave said that at the end of the stay, those checking were checking not only their own children, but also the other children who needed checking.
I can find only a single instance of this, or indeed none as Oldfield did not check all the children, so it does not seem to have happened in general. If it had happened like this, there would have been a tighter checking regimen. A little thought shows 6 people on a rota could have checked the lot every 10 minutes.
The actual checking regimen is important.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Carana on February 01, 2016, 02:55:26 PM
So you think the McCann's told the truth about the checking system ?
Can you remind us of how many times on May the 3rd, either of them checked and/or viewed their children directly after going to wine and dine ?
Explain this to me:
[Q]At the time when the Irish tourist reportedly saw Gerry, there are various witness statements that place the child’s father at the Ocean Club.
[A - Amaral]They are not credible. The employees are unable to tell at what time the persons were there, for how long each one of them stayed away when they say they went to the apartments. And the group is not credible. They say that on the previous nights, every 30 minutes, each one of them went to check only on his own children; but on that night, between 9.30 and 10 p.m., someone curiously goes to check that apartment, almost every five minutes, leaving the rest unchecked.
Source;
Cadaver was frozen or kept in the cold Correio da Manhã
24 July 2008 Thanks to Joana Morais for translation
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id139.html
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 01, 2016, 03:00:18 PM
[Q]At the time when the Irish tourist reportedly saw Gerry, there are various witness statements that place the child’s father at the Ocean Club.
[A - Amaral]They are not credible. The employees are unable to tell at what time the persons were there, for how long each one of them stayed away when they say they went to the apartments. And the group is not credible. They say that on the previous nights, every 30 minutes, each one of them went to check only on his own children; but on that night, between 9.30 and 10 p.m., someone curiously goes to check that apartment, almost every five minutes, leaving the rest unchecked.
Source;
Cadaver was frozen or kept in the cold Correio da Manhã
24 July 2008 Thanks to Joana Morais for translation
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id139.html
Well if you would like to answer my questions first......
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Carana on February 01, 2016, 03:09:03 PM
In the meantime, have you found anything to substantiate this allegation from Amaral?
"...but on that night, between 9.30 and 10 p.m., someone curiously goes to check that apartment, almost every five minutes, leaving the rest unchecked."
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: John on February 01, 2016, 04:43:57 PM
As has already been pointed out, the Court was not concerned with the evidence of the case itself and certainly never elicited any during the trial. That said, it is curious that the judge included the comments attributed to the police and later promoted in the Archive.
Has anyone got a clue to her reasons?
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 01, 2016, 04:48:38 PM
As has already been pointed out, the Court was not concerned with the evidence of the case itself and certainly never elicited any during the trial. That said, it is curious that the judge included the comments attributed to the police and later promoted in the Archive.
Has anyone got a clue to her reasons?
She found it to be relevant ?
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 01, 2016, 04:49:53 PM
When I put something in a document it is because it has relevance. I guess the judge would operate the same way and thought it was relevant to the proceedings otherwise why would she do it? I doubt she had a word target to achieve.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 01, 2016, 05:12:47 PM
When I put something in a document it is because it has relevance. I guess the judge would operate the same way and thought it was relevant to the proceedings otherwise why would she do it? I doubt she had a word target to achieve.
She included quite a bit of the archive yet ignored other bits.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: pathfinder73 on February 01, 2016, 05:21:17 PM
When I put something in a document it is because it has relevance. I guess the judge would operate the same way and thought it was relevant to the proceedings otherwise why would she do it? I doubt she had a word target to achieve.
Part of the trial at hand involved trying to work out what Amaral was alleging and the relationship to what was actually in the case files or not.
Most of it was, but was derived from a PARTIAL analysis of the totality.
It was not within her remit to judge whether anything in the files had been judged as true or not (as what was in the files had never come to court).
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: John on February 01, 2016, 05:34:36 PM
The header for Par 15 states...
PROVED FACTS
Taking into account the matter considered undisputed in the selection of facts and the decision handed down in due course after producing the matter of evidence and discussing the case, the following facts are demonstrated :
ie the contents of Par15, the same content which was stated in the Archive, is demonstrated.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Carana on February 01, 2016, 06:03:27 PM
Taking into account the matter considered undisputed in the selection of facts and the decision handed down in due course after producing the matter of evidence and discussing the case, the following facts are demonstrated :
ie the contents of Par15, the same content which was stated in the Archive, is demonstrated.
Obviously. She was quoting what was stated in the files.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 01, 2016, 06:24:14 PM
Part of the trial at hand involved trying to work out what Amaral was alleging and the relationship to what was actually in the case files or not.
Most of it was, but was derived from a PARTIAL analysis of the totality.
It was not within her remit to judge whether anything in the files had been judged as true or not (as what was in the files had never come to court).
I didn't say it was. The judge was quite clear what the trial was about "Whether the McCann claim had validity".Not even whether or not the book was the truth. Placing abstracts from the archiving document in her judgement because she thought they were relevant is not the same as judging them.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 01, 2016, 06:39:46 PM
As has already been pointed out, the Court was not concerned with the evidence of the case itself and certainly never elicited any during the trial. That said, it is curious that the judge included the comments attributed to the police and later promoted in the Archive.
Has anyone got a clue to her reasons?
Could it have anything to do with Amaral's Book, Chapter 12 in particular (entitled "A Rather Weak Monitoring System")? Seeing as how this trial was about damages caused by his book, presumably he sought to justify his reasons for writing the following:
Quote
It is highly likely that inside the apartment, they went through the consequences of their actions and the failure of their monitoring system. To minimise their responsibility and not be accused of negligence, it was necessary for them to augment the frequency of their visits. With the checks so close together, who could imagine that someone would get into the apartment? It was quite simply impossible.
Amaral therefore presumably cited the PT AG's words as his justification, which the damages judge acknowledged appeared in the archiving report, hence she confirmed it is a fact that the PT AG wrote what he wrote.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 01, 2016, 06:40:42 PM
I didn't say it was. The judge was quite clear what the trial was about "Whether the McCann claim had validity".Not even whether or not the book was the truth. Placing abstracts from the archiving document in her judgement because she thought they were relevant is not the same as judging them.
Agreed.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 01, 2016, 06:45:48 PM
The judgement also contains the following in proved facts...
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
This must come as a massive surprise to Martin Grime...neither of these facts are true...so why are they in the judgement as proved facts
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Carana on February 01, 2016, 07:40:44 PM
The judgement also contains the following in proved facts...
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
This must come as a massive surprise to Martin Grime...neither of these facts are true...so why are they in the judgement as proved facts
The judge tried to find if these assertions were in the files.
They were.
However, it was not whithin her remit to question the validity of whether what was in the files was accurate or not - just whether Amaral had drawn on certain bits that were effectively lurking somewhere.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 01, 2016, 07:41:39 PM
As has been stated many times.
Mccann supporters are quite happy when court judgments favour the mccanns.
However, as we see on this thread, they are unable to accept ANYTHING against their doctrine.
As a reminder, can anyone provide a cite showing independent verification of the times when the mccanns or their associates checked the children ?
P.S. Leaving the Tapas area is not verification of a check(s)
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Carana on February 01, 2016, 07:44:51 PM
Mccann supporters are quite happy when court judgments favour the mccanns.
However, as we see on this thread, they are unable to accept ANYTHING against their doctrine.
As a reminder, can anyone provide a cite showing independent verification of the times when the mccanns or their associates checked the children ?
P.S. Leaving the Tapas area is not verification of a check(s)
Stephen Carpenter said;
At approximately half past eight, Gerry and Kate and their group of approximately ten people were already seated at their table...........I vaguely remember that Gerry and Kate and other people from the group would leave the table in intervals.......Between approximately a quarter past nine and half past nine we left the Tapas bar to go home http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
So he was in their company from 8.30-9.30pm at the most. During that time he didn't see Kate leave the table to check, so if she left she went elsewhere. Perhaps the 'Ladies'? Russell O'Brien says in his rog interview that the toilet was 'almost up to the portal', so I'm assuming it's the building on the left as you enter the Tapas complex. Anyone in the Tapas restaurant who saw people coming and going couldn't say for sure if they'd been to the toilet or to the apartments. No-one else saw them AFAIK.
Carpenter and his wife left between 9.15-9.30pm. According to the T9 timeline he could have seen Jane going. Jane returning. Gerry talking to Jez. Gerry returning. Matt and Russell going. He didn't see anyone. He did see parked cars on the same side as the reception. None of the checkers saw them.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Carana on February 01, 2016, 08:26:52 PM
Now Carana, would you care to remind us all what did kate mccann and her friend say about Mrs Fenn in response ?
I don't see how your reply is an answer to my question.
My question is quite simple, but let me put it another way:
- What is there in the files that cross-references Mrs Fenn's statement concerning who she heard crying (in her opinion it wasn't a baby of 2 years-old or less - if ever that was what she was actually asked), on what date, at what time, for how long?
- Has any reconstruction been done to check where the sound actually could have come from?
- Was the friend she phoned ever contacted by the PJ to establish the time (date)?
- Did anyone ever ask her whether she heard two gates open and closing ?
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 01, 2016, 08:31:39 PM
I don't see how your reply is an answer to my question.
My question is quite simple, but let me put it another way:
- What is there in the files that cross-references Mrs Fenn's statement concerning who she heard crying (in her opinion it wasn't a baby of 2 years-old or less - if ever that was what she was actually asked), on what date, at what time, for how long?
- Has any reconstruction been done to check where the sound actually could have come from?
- Was the friend she phoned ever contacted by the PJ to establish the time (date)?
- Did anyone ever ask her whether she heard two gates open and closing ?
Now, let's start again with the questions I asked of you earlier.
You have yet to respond.
Try reading my earlier posts.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 01, 2016, 09:49:56 PM
There is an abundance of evidence of checks by the whole group, including by waiters who recall having to return meals to the kitchen to re-heat because various members of the group were off checking the children, Jez Wikins' conversation with Gerry outside the apartment on the occasion of Gerry's check, the recollection of Steven Carpenter, who was in the restaurant the night Madeleine vanished and much else ....
None of which is proof of checks.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 01, 2016, 09:51:08 PM
That might provide proof of one check. Would you need every check to have been witnessed in order to verify that checks took place as frequently as claimed?
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: G-Unit on February 01, 2016, 10:27:02 PM
The tapas staff;
STARIKOVA VITORINO (Russian citizen, with the telephone No "96635 ####) - kitchen assistant: - Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes.
JOAQUIM JOSE MOREIRA BATISTA (residing at Rua Ilha Terceira, no. 15, Lagos, Telephone No 91 277 ####) - table employee [waiter]. - Of the group of 8/9 British citizens who dined at the restaurant last night, as usual, of which the parents of missing were part (he didn't know them) he noticed that two individuals left the table, of the male gender. - The first to leave was about 40/45 years old (tall, skinny, white complexion, with large [a full head of] hair of color gray) and the period of his absence was about 15 minutes, being that they had to [re-]heat his food, which had cooled; - The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes, http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 01, 2016, 10:29:10 PM
That might provide proof of one check. Would you need every check to have been witnessed in order to verify that checks took place as frequently as claimed?
Yes.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 01, 2016, 10:31:09 PM
This is to do with the title of the thread. There are no witnesses to the checks and we have to either believe or disbelieve the supposed checker.
When the waiters saw very members of the mcCann group vacating the table what other activities apart from checking their kids do you suppose they may have been engaged in?
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: G-Unit on February 01, 2016, 11:05:52 PM
When the waiters saw very members of the mcCann group vacating the table what other activities apart from checking their kids do you suppose they may have been engaged in?
If one of them did go missing for 30 minutes what do you think he was doing?
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 01, 2016, 11:11:31 PM
If one of them did go missing for 30 minutes what do you think he was doing?
What he said he was doing, something which was in part verified by an independent witness. but perhaps you could answer the question I posed earlier instead of deflecting.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 01, 2016, 11:25:05 PM
This is to do with the title of the thread. There are no witnesses to the checks and we have to either believe or disbelieve the supposed checker.
If there were no witnesses then there is no proof. If there is no proof then how the hell can the PT AG claim that the McCanns were not checking on the kids as often as they said? What has he based this statement on, and more to the point why do some people see this part of the Archiving Report as proof that the McCanns are liars? Perhaps you could attempt to give me a some honest and straight answers to this.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: pathfinder73 on February 02, 2016, 12:23:50 AM
It must be mainly based on Mrs Fenn's account of their daughter crying for over an hour on TUE. It only stopped when the parents returned close to midnight. They were also late back on WED when Kate said she slept in the kids bedroom. If they arrived at the tapas at 8:30 and left at midnight that would be 6 checks in total every 30 minutes.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: misty on February 02, 2016, 12:35:24 AM
It must be mainly based on Mrs Fenn's account of their daughter crying for over an hour on TUE. It only stopped when the parents returned close to midnight. They were also late back on WED when Kate said she slept in the kids bedroom. If they arrived at the tapas at 8:30 and left at midnight that would be 6 checks in total every 30 minutes.
The PJ could have asked Mrs Fenn if she heard the patio doors opening/closing at any other time during that week in order to help verify the frequency of the checks. I wonder why they failed to ask that question if they suspected the parents were lying? She wasn't interviewed until after cadaver dogs had alerted so why weren't they trying properly to build a case?
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: pathfinder73 on February 02, 2016, 12:53:28 AM
The PJ could have asked Mrs Fenn if she heard the patio doors opening/closing at any other time during that week in order to help verify the frequency of the checks. I wonder why they failed to ask that question if they suspected the parents were lying? She wasn't interviewed until after cadaver dogs had alerted so why weren't they trying properly to build a case?
At the beginning, first and foremost they are trying to find Madeleine not investigating if they were checking that week as regular as they claimed. As you say that all changed when the dogs arrived and they start looking closely at them and their claims.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: misty on February 02, 2016, 01:05:22 AM
At the beginning, first and foremost they are trying to find Madeleine not investigating if they were checking that week as regular as they claimed. As you say that all changed when the dogs arrived and they start looking closely at them and their claims.
The PJ took Mrs Fenn's statement in August AFTER the cadaver dogs had been into 5a. Why do you suppose the PJ were so focussed on the crying that they omitted to ask Mrs Fenn how many times she had heard the patio door moving that week, bearing in mind she was familiar enough with the sound to state that the crying only stopped when the parent(s) returned via the patio door? The PJ had had the Tapas 9 timeline for 3 whole months & were already suspicious about the checking.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: pathfinder73 on February 02, 2016, 01:40:07 AM
The PJ took Mrs Fenn's statement in August AFTER the cadaver dogs had been into 5a. Why do you suppose the PJ were so focussed on the crying that they omitted to ask Mrs Fenn how many times she had heard the patio door moving that week, bearing in mind she was familiar enough with the sound to state that the crying only stopped when the parent(s) returned via the patio door? The PJ had had the Tapas 9 timeline for 3 whole months & were already suspicious about the checking.
They had crying for over an hour unchecked so every 30 minutes checking on their children to them was a lie regardless of other checks.
When asked if on the night of May 1, 2007 he went to have dinner at the Tapas with Kate, he says yes. As customary they would come and check on the children every half hour, usually alternating. They arrived at the Tapas around 20:30, and then went to the apartment every half hour, until they arrived back, at around 23:00, plus or minus 10 minutes. Occasionally one of the others in the group made the check, he does not remember if this happened on the 1st. It is not true that Madeleine had been crying that night for an hour and 15 minutes, because she was not alone all that time.
They had crying for over an hour unchecked so every 30 minutes checking on their children to them was a lie regardless of other checks.
When asked if on the night of May 1, 2007 he went to have dinner at the Tapas with Kate, he says yes. As customary they would come and check on the children every half hour, usually alternating. They arrived at the Tapas around 20:30, and then went to the apartment every half hour, until they arrived back, at around 23:00, plus or minus 10 minutes. Occasionally one of the others in the group made the check, he does not remember if this happened on the 1st. It is not true that Madeleine had been crying that night for an hour and 15 minutes, because she was not alone all that time.
No point in us arguing, Pathfinder. Either the group of 9 were telling lies about the frequency of their checks or the memory of an elderly lady was unreliable 3 months down the line. What was inexcusable was the PJ's failure to take a full written statement from Mrs Fenn in the immediate aftermath.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 02, 2016, 07:24:03 AM
No point in us arguing, Pathfinder. Either the group of 9 were telling lies about the frequency of their checks or the memory of an elderly lady was unreliable 3 months down the line. What was inexcusable was the PJ's failure to take a full written statement from Mrs Fenn in the immediate aftermath.
You have to think about motives.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 02, 2016, 07:52:00 AM
It must be mainly based on Mrs Fenn's account of their daughter crying for over an hour on TUE. It only stopped when the parents returned close to midnight. They were also late back on WED when Kate said she slept in the kids bedroom. If they arrived at the tapas at 8:30 and left at midnight that would be 6 checks in total every 30 minutes.
There is no proof of who was crying and only one person's word for the length of the crying, how does this constitute proof.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 02, 2016, 08:10:34 AM
No Carana, that is what you were appearing to do ?
Now just to help you out, here are the questions I asked you, which you did not respond to.
' So you think the McCann's told the truth about the checking system ?
Can you remind us of how many times on May the 3rd, either of them checked and/or viewed their children directly after going to wine and dine ? '
I have seen nothing to indicate that they were lying, no. As the PJ didn't seek to clarify it, there is no way of knowing whether Mrs Fenn heard one child or several at various points and from various apartments.
Now, back to my question:
In the meantime, have you found anything to substantiate this allegation from Amaral?
"...but on that night, between 9.30 and 10 p.m., someone curiously goes to check that apartment, almost every five minutes, leaving the rest unchecked."
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 02, 2016, 08:13:39 AM
so, in your opinion Mrs Fenn's statement is proof that the McCanns are liars? How do you work that one out when her testimony was never examined in a court of law?
well kate mcann admitted in that book of hers that she swore at mrs fenn for trying to help
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Carana on February 02, 2016, 08:17:33 AM
so, in your opinion Mrs Fenn's statement is proof that the McCanns are liars? How do you work that one out when her testimony was never examined in a court of law?
Amaral didn't bother to get his boys to cross-check it. Perhaps he wasn't actually interested in finding out...
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Benice on February 02, 2016, 08:21:20 AM
It must be mainly based on Mrs Fenn's account of their daughter crying for over an hour on TUE. It only stopped when the parents returned close to midnight. They were also late back on WED when Kate said she slept in the kids bedroom. If they arrived at the tapas at 8:30 and left at midnight that would be 6 checks in total every 30 minutes.
Incorrect. It was the 2nd May not the 1st when they stayed out later than usual and returned around midnight. On the 1st they returned around 11.00p.m give or take 10 mins - according to your own quote from GM in an earlier post.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 02, 2016, 08:30:52 AM
Going by your logic concerning your demands for proof of checks ie: a witness to the parents entering the apartment, then you should apply this same logic to Mrs Fenn. Did she witness the McCann children crying? No, she heard a child crying, two different things.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 02, 2016, 08:37:48 AM
I have seen nothing to indicate that they were lying, no. As the PJ didn't seek to clarify it, there is no way of knowing whether Mrs Fenn heard one child or several at various points and from various apartments.
Now, back to my question:
In the meantime, have you found anything to substantiate this allegation from Amaral?
"...but on that night, between 9.30 and 10 p.m., someone curiously goes to check that apartment, almost every five minutes, leaving the rest unchecked."
I was referring to the mccanns claimed 'checks'.
Would you care to cite which of the group actually checked on their own or others children ?
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Benice on February 02, 2016, 09:14:10 AM
If the times they gave - showed it was impossible for them to be true - then SY's forensic analysis of the timelines would have revealed that. Instead it showed the opposite - i.e. that there was clearly opportunity for an abduction to have taken place.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 02, 2016, 09:18:43 AM
If the times they gave - showed it was impossible for them to be true - then SY's forensic analysis of the timelines would have revealed that. Instead it showed the opposite - i.e. that there was clearly opportunity for an abduction to have taken place.
Yet absolutely no forensic evidence of an abductor has been found.
As SY, there is no proof at all that the mccanns or the tapas group were interviewed by them.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 02, 2016, 09:30:11 AM
From the Mail.
It seems to sum up certain attitudes.
' The group of nine were holidaying in Portugal and wanted to have a good time. As one of the doctors, Matthew Oldfield, was to recall: "We drank. So what! We were on holiday." '
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-474656/Madeleine-missing-hour-did-McCanns-check-children.html#ixzz3z08n7Z3q Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 02, 2016, 09:32:10 AM
' The group of nine were holidaying in Portugal and wanted to have a good time. As one of the doctors, Matthew Oldfield, was to recall: "We drank. So what! We were on holiday." '
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-474656/Madeleine-missing-hour-did-McCanns-check-children.html#ixzz3z08n7Z3q Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
carana is denying it it may not have been in the files but it was admitted to
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Carana on February 02, 2016, 09:36:01 AM
' The group of nine were holidaying in Portugal and wanted to have a good time. As one of the doctors, Matthew Oldfield, was to recall: "We drank. So what! We were on holiday." '
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-474656/Madeleine-missing-hour-did-McCanns-check-children.html#ixzz3z08n7Z3q Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I remember that. That was originally from the Sol journalist who didn't understand what was on the piece of paper that flew out of a window into her waiting hands, thus perpetuating one of the most enduring myths that they drank 14 bottles of wine.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 02, 2016, 09:42:28 AM
I remember that. That was originally from the Sol journalist who didn't understand what was on the piece of paper that flew out of a window into her waiting hands, thus perpetuating one of the most enduring myths that they drank 14 bottles of wine.
You can prove that of course ?
and who said it was 14 bottles that night ?
By 10 o'clock, if I recall correctly, on that fateful evening , it was 4 bottles that had been on the table.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Carana on February 02, 2016, 09:45:47 AM
thats still alot of wine in 2 hours it says in kates book that night they left to go out about 8pm??
The wine came with the meal. The meal commenced approximately one hour before the alert was raised,
How could you possibly know how much wine had been consumed from those 4 bottles in approx one hour? You would need to know how much wine was left in the bottles and how much wine was left in glasses when the alarm was raised to make any judgement.
They were not out drinking. They were eating a three course meal - which came with wine
Not a single witness including the police claimed anyone was inebriated. That should tell you something.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: pathfinder73 on February 02, 2016, 10:09:14 AM
Incorrect. It was the 2nd May not the 1st when they stayed out later than usual and returned around midnight. On the 1st they returned around 11.00p.m give or take 10 mins - according to your own quote from GM in an earlier post.
Not according to independent witnesses - tapas staff/Mrs Fenn and there was no crying on WED because Rachel heard nowt and the McCanns could hear their daughter next door in the mornings. So Rachel would hear crying for 75 minutes. It would be impossible for her not to hear what Mrs Fenn did if it happened that night. The crying night being changed leads to an abduction scenario and a predator being there. But they still go out the next night and poof like magic she's gone.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 02, 2016, 10:20:40 AM
The wine came with the meal. The meal commenced approximately one hour before the alert was raised,
How could you possibly know how much wine had been consumed from those 4 bottles in approx one hour? You would need to know how much wine was left in the bottles and how much wine was left in glasses when the alarm was raised to make any judgement.
They were not out drinking. They were eating a three course meal - which came with wine
Not a single witness including the police claimed anyone was inebriated. That should tell you something.
So they would be eating for about 4 hours on the other nights ?
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 02, 2016, 10:24:33 AM
IMO There is no proof of that libellous claim. And if the times they gave - showed it was impossible for them to be true - then SY's forensic analysis of the timelines would have revealed that. Instead it showed the opposite - i.e. that there was clearly opportunity for an abduction to have taken place.
That's like saying that just because a shot from a gun ricocheted of 5 walls and hit someone in another house, that would be an obvious way to shoot someone.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 02, 2016, 10:59:43 AM
That's like saying that just because a shot from a gun ricocheted of 5 walls and hit someone in another house, that would be an obvious way to shoot someone.
No it would mean it is possible
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Benice on February 02, 2016, 11:07:51 AM
Not according to independent witnesses - tapas staff/Mrs Fenn and there was no crying on WED because Rachel heard nowt and the McCanns could hear their daughter next door in the mornings. So Rachel would hear crying for 75 minutes. It would be impossible for her not to hear what Mrs Fenn did if it happened that night. The crying night being changed leads to an abduction scenario and a predator being there. But they still go out the next night and poof like magic she's gone.
I'm not sure what the above has got to do with my point that it was not midnight as you claimed when the McCanns returned on Tues 1st. The waiters confirmed that it was only on the night of the 2nd when the group stayed later and left around midnight.
As far as I am aware there is no corroborating evidence that it was Madeleine who Mrs. Fenn heard. Even Amaral in his book refers to a person who claimed to hear Madeleine (rather than 'a child') crying - as 'a neighbour' - and does not mention Mrs Fenn by name. One has to wonder why he didn't say Mrs. Fenn named Madeleine as the child she heard crying in his book Could it be because the PJ files would show that to be untrue?
Must go out now..
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 02, 2016, 11:08:54 AM
so, in your opinion Mrs Fenn's statement is proof? How do you work that one out when her testimony was never examined in a court of law?
It doesn't matter what evidence we dig up from our limited resources and press inventions but the police investigated all this and stated in their final report to the public prosecutor that the checks story was suspect. The public prosecutors thereafter stated it as fact in their archiving report to the Attorney General. The links are all there at the top of page 1 so I suggest you read them.
We don't need to prove anything, the proper authorities in Portugal already did that.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: pathfinder73 on February 02, 2016, 11:19:58 AM
I'm not sure what the above has got to do with my point that it was not midnight as you claimed when the McCanns returned on Tues 1st. The waiters confirmed that it was only on the night of the 2nd when the group stayed later and left around midnight.
As far as I am aware there is no corroborating evidence that it was Madeleine who Mrs. Fenn heard. Even Amaral in his book refers to a person who claimed to hear Madeleine (rather than 'a child') crying - as 'a neighbour' - and does not mention Mrs Fenn by name. One has to wonder why he didn't say Mrs. Fenn named Madeleine as the child she heard crying in his book Could it be because the PJ files would show that to be untrue?
Must go out now..
That video I posted said they left at around midnight and was not referring to WED. We will see who the police think is the liar at the end of this case.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on February 02, 2016, 11:35:19 AM
' The group of nine were holidaying in Portugal and wanted to have a good time. As one of the doctors, Matthew Oldfield, was to recall: "We drank. So what! We were on holiday." '
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-474656/Madeleine-missing-hour-did-McCanns-check-children.html#ixzz3z08n7Z3q Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
We should have a competition for the most erroneous account of what happened. This would surely be a strong contender.
An article correcting the errors in it would quite possibly be as long as, or longer than, the original.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Carana on February 02, 2016, 11:35:34 AM
That video I posted said they left at around midnight and was not referring to WED. We will see who the police think is the liar at the end of this case.
How do know it wasn't the Wednesday evening (which is when they'd admitted a longer gap between checks)?
The unidentified voice says "they"... Who is they?
It's already known that the Paynes had their baby monitor and thus didn't do room checks.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 02, 2016, 11:37:52 AM
It doesn't matter what evidence we dig up from our limited resources and press inventions but the police investigated all this and stated in their final report to the public prosecutor that the checks story was suspect. The public prosecutors thereafter stated it as fact in their archiving report to the Attorney General. The links are all there at the top of page 1 so I suggest you read them. We don't need to prove anything, the proper authorities in Portugal already did that.
you say the archiving report says the checks were suspect...that is hardly saying that the mccanns lied. thearchiving report is an opinion and not definitive proof.
As for proven facts in the court case...it has been explained to you by Carana who understands the judgement that the list of proved facts are not "proved" by the court...and as I have pointed out two of the so called proved facts are similarly not proved at all
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Carana on February 02, 2016, 11:42:02 AM
It doesn't matter what evidence we dig up from our limited resources and press inventions but the police investigated all this and stated in their final report to the public prosecutor that the checks story was suspect. The public prosecutors thereafter stated it as fact in their archiving report to the Attorney General. The links are all there at the top of page 1 so I suggest you read them.
We don't need to prove anything, the proper authorities in Portugal already did that.
On page 2412, is the interview with PAMELA FENN, who relates several details, of which, though not clarifying the facts, are elucidating.
PAMELA FENN lives on the first floor of the residential block, above the apartment occupied by the McCANN family. She related that, on 1 May 2007, two days before the disappearance, at about 22h30, she heard a child crying, which by the sound was MADELEINE. The child continued weeping for one hour and 15 minutes, until the parent’s arrival (she heard the door sounds), at about 23h45. This witness places in cause the allegation (by the parents) of the daily routine of visits every 30 minutes to check the children who had been left on their own.
Mrs Fenn never said that it was Madeleine. She was asked if, in her view, the crying came from a child two years or younger (at least that is how it was written down in the statement). What was she actually asked? Was it phrased like that when she was asked? Or was she asked if it could have been an infant / baby or whatever other term to distinguish very young children?
There are also numerous questions as to why there is no mention of the two gates, whether she wore a hearing aid (as elderly people often do), etc.
I find it totally plausible that she'd got a bit confused and heard one or more young children crying at some point from any apartment, heard a patio door sliding at some point, but heard whichever twin had woken up later than her recollection and possibly Madeleine calling out as she toddled over to sleep with her parents that night.
Wihout further corroboration it's impossible to know whether her account is accurate or not (particularly 3 months later and noted in reported speech).
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 02, 2016, 12:08:57 PM
The only person making a fool of themselves is you....you say the archiving report says the checks were suspect...that is hardly saying that the mccanns lied. thearchiving report is an opinion and not definitive proof.
As for proven facts in the court case...it has been explained to you by Carana who understands the judgement that the list of proved facts are not "proved" by the court...and as I have pointed out two of the so called proved facts are similarly not proved at all
You are mistaken. Yours is the opinion, the police based their report on hard facts. They were there and interviewed people, you weren't. The AG stated they invented the checking regime based on the evidence and a judge accepted it and used it in her judgement. Not even you could claim a judge would quote a falsehood as a 'proven fact'.
No doubt the judge took all this into consideration when she failed to award the full amount claimed.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 02, 2016, 12:13:11 PM
On page 2412, is the interview with PAMELA FENN, who relates several details, of which, though not clarifying the facts, are elucidating. PAMELA FENN lives on the first floor of the residential block, above the apartment occupied by the McCANN family. She related that, on 1 May 2007, two days before the disappearance, at about 22h30, she heard a child crying, which by the sound was MADELEINE. The child continued weeping for one hour and 15 minutes, until the parent’s arrival (she heard the door sounds), at about 23h45. This witness places in cause the allegation (by the parents) of the daily routine of visits every 30 minutes to check the children who had been left on their own.
Mrs Fenn never said that it was Madeleine. She was asked if, in her view, the crying came from a child two years or younger (at least that is how it was written down in the statement). What was she actually asked? Was it phrased like that when she was asked? Or was she asked if it could have been an infant / baby or whatever other term to distinguish very young children?
There are also numerous questions as to why there is no mention of the two gates, whether she wore a hearing aid (as elderly people often do), etc.
I find it totally plausible that she'd got a bit confused and heard one or more young children crying at some point from any apartment, heard a patio door sliding at some point, but heard whichever twin had woken up later than her recollection and possibly Madeleine calling out as she toddled over to sleep with her parents that night.
Wihout further corroboration it's impossible to know whether her account is accurate or not (particularly 3 months later and noted in reported speech).
You can quote newspaper articles until the cows come home, personally I go with the police , the AG and the Judge.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 02, 2016, 12:15:00 PM
You are mistaken. Yours is the opinion, the police based their report on hard facts. They were there and interviewed people, you weren't. The AG stated they invented the checking regime based on the evidence and a judge accepted it and used it in her judgement. Not even you could claim a judge would quote a falsehood as a 'proven fact'.
As for proved facts, the judge accepted the AG report as FACT!
Quite right.
As I have said before, some like to pick which judgements suit their agenda.
However, proven facts are precisely that . PROVEN.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Carana on February 02, 2016, 12:17:32 PM
On page 2412, is the interview with PAMELA FENN, who relates several details, of which, though not clarifying the facts, are elucidating. PAMELA FENN lives on the first floor of the residential block, above the apartment occupied by the McCANN family. She related that, on 1 May 2007, two days before the disappearance, at about 22h30, she heard a child crying, which by the sound was MADELEINE. The child continued weeping for one hour and 15 minutes, until the parent’s arrival (she heard the door sounds), at about 23h45. This witness places in cause the allegation (by the parents) of the daily routine of visits every 30 minutes to check the children who had been left on their own.
Mrs Fenn never said that it was Madeleine. She was asked if, in her view, the crying came from a child two years or younger (at least that is how it was written down in the statement). What was she actually asked? Was it phrased like that when she was asked? Or was she asked if it could have been an infant / baby or whatever other term to distinguish very young children?
There are also numerous questions as to why there is no mention of the two gates, whether she wore a hearing aid (as elderly people often do), etc.
I find it totally plausible that she'd got a bit confused and heard one or more young children crying at some point from any apartment, heard a patio door sliding at some point, but heard whichever twin had woken up later than her recollection and possibly Madeleine calling out as she toddled over to sleep with her parents that night.
Wihout further corroboration it's impossible to know whether her account is accurate or not (particularly 3 months later and noted in reported speech).
Mrs Fenn did say it was Madeleine - their daughter not a 2 year old but an older child. I provided the statement in Portuguese which you ignored.
"She also said that she never told the McCann's that she had heard their daughter crying previously on Tuesday (1st May) because she thought it would just increase their suffering."
"Due the tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger."
"que pela sonoridade the parecia de uma crianca jovem e nao de um bebe de dois anos ou menos."
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 02, 2016, 12:23:15 PM
As I have said before, some like to pick which judgements suit their agenda.
However, proven facts are precisely that . PROVEN.
Errr no. A proven fact is only a proven fact when it has proven a fact which factually fits in with the version of the facts you are promoting.
If a proven fact does not prove a fact which is necessary to factually fit in with the version of the facts you are promoting then it is not a proven fact and is only an opinion. Simples.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Carana on February 02, 2016, 12:25:19 PM
As I have said before, some like to pick which judgements suit their agenda.
However, proven facts are precisely that . PROVEN.
What was "proven"? An elderly lady's account, noted in reported speech 3 months after the event, without any cross-checking, does not constitute proven. The prosecutor did accept the assumption that it was Madeleine, possibly because there was nothing else presented in the files to dispute that account (aside from the parents).
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Admin on February 02, 2016, 12:27:48 PM
On page 2412, is the interview with PAMELA FENN, who relates several details, of which, though not clarifying the facts, are elucidating. PAMELA FENN lives on the first floor of the residential block, above the apartment occupied by the McCANN family. She related that, on 1 May 2007, two days before the disappearance, at about 22h30, she heard a child crying, which by the sound was MADELEINE. The child continued weeping for one hour and 15 minutes, until the parent’s arrival (she heard the door sounds), at about 23h45. This witness places in cause the allegation (by the parents) of the daily routine of visits every 30 minutes to check the children who had been left on their own.
Mrs Fenn never said that it was Madeleine. She was asked if, in her view, the crying came from a child two years or younger (at least that is how it was written down in the statement). What was she actually asked? Was it phrased like that when she was asked? Or was she asked if it could have been an infant / baby or whatever other term to distinguish very young children?
There are also numerous questions as to why there is no mention of the two gates, whether she wore a hearing aid (as elderly people often do), etc.
I find it totally plausible that she'd got a bit confused and heard one or more young children crying at some point from any apartment, heard a patio door sliding at some point, but heard whichever twin had woken up later than her recollection and possibly Madeleine calling out as she toddled over to sleep with her parents that night.
Wihout further corroboration it's impossible to know whether her account is accurate or not (particularly 3 months later and noted in reported speech).
Carana, with respect, can you please make plain in your posts which text relates to a document, which is a quote and which is your own observation. It is convention to provide a link for the reader too.
Admin
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Carana on February 02, 2016, 12:28:19 PM
Errr no. A proven fact is only a proven fact when it has proven a fact which factually fits in with the version of the facts you are promoting.
If a proven fact does not prove a fact which is necessary to factually fit in with the version of the facts you are promoting then it is not a proven fact and is only an opinion. Simples.
@)(++(*
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Carana on February 02, 2016, 12:31:49 PM
Correction to my earlier post... what I quoted wasn't from the archiving ruling but from the PJ summary:
Background to the aforementioned assertion can be traced to the final police report which includes the following:
On page 2412, is the interview with PAMELA FENN, who relates several details, of which, though not clarifying the facts, are elucidating. PAMELA FENN lives on the first floor of the residential block, above the apartment occupied by the McCANN family. She related that, on 1 May 2007, two days before the disappearance, at about 22h30, she heard a child crying, which by the sound was MADELEINE. The child continued weeping for one hour and 15 minutes, until the parent’s arrival (she heard the door sounds), at about 23h45. This witness places in cause the allegation (by the parents) of the daily routine of visits every 30 minutes to check the children who had been left on their own. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7019.0
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: pathfinder73 on February 02, 2016, 12:32:23 PM
What newspaper account did I post on this? I quoted the archival ruling.
That is not immediately obvious. However to requote an extract from the piece you selected from the Final Police Report.
"This witness places in cause [doubt] the allegation (by the parents) of the daily routine of visits every 30 minutes to check the children who had been left on their own.
In plain English this means the witness places in doubt the parents version of events.
[ ] added
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 02, 2016, 12:40:52 PM
Mrs Fenn never said that it was Madeleine. She was asked if, in her view, the crying came from a child two years or younger (at least that is how it was written down in the statement). What was she actually asked? Was it phrased like that when she was asked? Or was she asked if it could have been an infant / baby or whatever other term to distinguish very young children?
There are also numerous questions as to why there is no mention of the two gates, whether she wore a hearing aid (as elderly people often do), etc.
I find it totally plausible that she'd got a bit confused and heard one or more young children crying at some point from any apartment, heard a patio door sliding at some point, but heard whichever twin had woken up later than her recollection and possibly Madeleine calling out as she toddled over to sleep with her parents that night.
Wihout further corroboration it's impossible to know whether her account is accurate or not (particularly 3 months later and noted in reported speech).
This is merely your opinion based on very little substance. Do you really think the police wouldn't have called with her on numerous occasions as well as check out her experience with the friend she called in distress? I give up!
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Carana on February 02, 2016, 12:44:04 PM
"que pela sonoridade the parecia de uma crianca jovem e nao de um bebe de dois anos ou menos."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm
I know... it says "a young child and not a baby of two years old or younger".
But that is how the officer wrote it down. Is that literally the question asked via the interpreter?
It's entirely feasible that she heard some young kid crying at some point, then whichever twin and Madeleine calling out "daddy" (who would have had a slighter old voice) and that would have tallied with what the parents had stated.
My issue is that Mrs Fenn's account isn't "proven". If there had been CCTV showing the parents walking up the steps at the time; if her phone call to Mrs Glynn had been checked; if an acoustic reconstruction had been done to verify her account; if there had been a video of this interview... and it all tallied, then I wouldn't be questioning it.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Carana on February 02, 2016, 12:46:23 PM
This is merely your opinion based on very little substance. Do you really think the police wouldn't have called with her on numerous occasions as well as check out her experience with the friend she called in distress? I give up!
I'm not quite sure I understand your post.
When was her statement taken?
Where is Mrs Glynn's statement (I can't even find one to suggest that one is in the missing folder).
ETA: Have you?
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 02, 2016, 12:52:13 PM
OMFG do you think the cops publish every single thing they speak to witnesses about? They were looking for a missing kid, not looking for liars.
honestly sometimes reading stuff on here makes me want to hit my head on a brick wall mcann supporters deny everything they will never understand what the mcanns caused by leaving their kids or whatever did happen
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Carana on February 02, 2016, 12:57:14 PM
OMFG do you think the cops publish every single thing they speak to witnesses about? They were looking for a missing kid, not looking for liars.
They were indeed, in the beginning. Yet, despite the fact that she lived just above, there is nothing in the files (that I can find) to suggest that she'd been interviewed before mid-August or whenever it was.
And you haven't answered my question.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: pathfinder73 on February 02, 2016, 12:59:35 PM
I know... it says "a young child and not a baby of two years old or younger".
But that is how the officer wrote it down. Is that literally the question asked via the interpreter?
It's entirely feasible that she heard some young kid crying at some point, then whichever twin and Madeleine calling out "daddy" (who would have had a slighter old voice) and that would have tallied with what the parents had stated.
My issue is that Mrs Fenn's account isn't "proven". If there had been CCTV showing the parents walking up the steps at the time; if her phone call to Mrs Glynn had been checked; if an acoustic reconstruction had been done to verify her account; if there had been a video of this interview... and it all tallied, then I wouldn't be questioning it.
"She also said that she never told the McCann's that she had heard their daughter crying previously on Tuesday (1st May) because she thought it would just increase their suffering." PF
She didn't tell them their missing daughter was crying on TUE to not increase their suffering.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Carana on February 02, 2016, 01:01:41 PM
"She also said that she never told the McCann's that she had heard their daughter crying previously on Tuesday (1st May) because she thought it would just increase their suffering." PF
She didn't tell them their missing daughter was crying on TUE to not increase their suffering.
And?
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: pathfinder73 on February 02, 2016, 01:03:21 PM
Errr no. A proven fact is only a proven fact when it has proven a fact which factually fits in with the version of the facts you are promoting.
If a proven fact does not prove a fact which is necessary to factually fit in with the version of the facts you are promoting then it is not a proven fact and is only an opinion. Simples.
*&*%£
Sounds like a good idea for a book on this case.
Mind you, that could consist of a front and back cover with space in between.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Carana on February 02, 2016, 01:13:12 PM
Errr no. A proven fact is only a proven fact when it has proven a fact which factually fits in with the version of the facts you are promoting.
If a proven fact does not prove a fact which is necessary to factually fit in with the version of the facts you are promoting then it is not a proven fact and is only an opinion. Simples.
Seeing as some people appear keen to promote the damage/defamation judge as having somehow proven that what she quoted from the files has somehow been proven, I'll repost this here:
Proven Facts in the Civil Trial: English Translation, 21 January 2015
Articles 27 and 28 – The answer to the question faces, firstly, the problem of dichotomy between "facts that have been ascertained in the inquiry" and "facts that are equally part of the inquiry". If one understood as facts that have been ascertained in the investigation those that, with rigour and according to procedural-penal dogmatism, resulted from the investigation, it is believed that only one would deserve that qualification – the disappearance of Madeleine MacCann. Everything that is part of the investigation, apart from that fact, is indicia, means of evidence, means of obtaining evidence and theses or hypotheses of fact, which is normal for an inquiry that has been archived due to a lack of evidence. Thus it is understood that, when one places side by side "facts that have been ascertained in the inquiry" and those that "are part of the inquiry" one is referring to the means of obtaining evidence, the means of evidence and indicia that make up the investigation itself and that are documented in the inquiry. Thus, from the reading of the book and the viewing of the documentary it is concluded that defendant Gonçalo Amaral uses, in his affirmations, mostly facts that did indeed take place and are documented in the inquiry (in the version that is available in this process). Some of the facts that were used are not complete (for example, from the report about Martin Smith's deposition – in the inquiry, page 1606 of Volume 6) – the part where the witness states that the person that he saw carrying a child in his arms did not do it "in a comfortable manner, showing a lack of habitude") and others that are contained in the book and in the documentary have not been included in the inquiry (v.g. the instructions that he gave to the picket when he heard about the disappearance – page 37 of the book; the statement attributed to the parents that the apartment showed break-in signs – page 44 of the book; Kate MacCann's discomfort over the speed of the car – page 55 of the book; the hypothesis of a reconstruction of events discussed in mid-May – page 94 of the book; the "informal" identification of Robert Murat by Jane Tanner – page 108). http://www.mccannfiles.com/id505.html
(I'm not sure that these were actually the final proven facts or whether they were her assessment as at January.)
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 02, 2016, 01:31:31 PM
Seeing as some people appear keen to promote the damage/defamation judge as having somehow proven that what she quoted from the files has somehow been proven, I'll repost this here:
Proven Facts in the Civil Trial: English Translation, 21 January 2015
Articles 27 and 28 – The answer to the question faces, firstly, the problem of dichotomy between "facts that have been ascertained in the inquiry" and "facts that are equally part of the inquiry". If one understood as facts that have been ascertained in the investigation those that, with rigour and according to procedural-penal dogmatism, resulted from the investigation, it is believed that only one would deserve that qualification – the disappearance of Madeleine MacCann. Everything that is part of the investigation, apart from that fact, is indicia, means of evidence, means of obtaining evidence and theses or hypotheses of fact, which is normal for an inquiry that has been archived due to a lack of evidence. Thus it is understood that, when one places side by side "facts that have been ascertained in the inquiry" and those that "are part of the inquiry" one is referring to the means of obtaining evidence, the means of evidence and indicia that make up the investigation itself and that are documented in the inquiry. Thus, from the reading of the book and the viewing of the documentary it is concluded that defendant Gonçalo Amaral uses, in his affirmations, mostly facts that did indeed take place and are documented in the inquiry (in the version that is available in this process). Some of the facts that were used are not complete (for example, from the report about Martin Smith's deposition – in the inquiry, page 1606 of Volume 6) – the part where the witness states that the person that he saw carrying a child in his arms did not do it "in a comfortable manner, showing a lack of habitude") and others that are contained in the book and in the documentary have not been included in the inquiry (v.g. the instructions that he gave to the picket when he heard about the disappearance – page 37 of the book; the statement attributed to the parents that the apartment showed break-in signs – page 44 of the book; Kate MacCann's discomfort over the speed of the car – page 55 of the book; the hypothesis of a reconstruction of events discussed in mid-May – page 94 of the book; the "informal" identification of Robert Murat by Jane Tanner – page 108). http://www.mccannfiles.com/id505.html
(I'm not sure that these were actually the final proven facts or whether they were her assessment as at January.)
I have never seen a judge yet or a court which includes known falsehoods within any judgement.
Proven Facts means exactly that, proven facts!
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 02, 2016, 01:32:31 PM
Errr no. A proven fact is only a proven fact when it has proven a fact which factually fits in with the version of the facts you are promoting.
If a proven fact does not prove a fact which is necessary to factually fit in with the version of the facts you are promoting then it is not a proven fact and is only an opinion. Simples.
we would need a definition of what is meant by a proven fact according to the court judgement as several as what are recorded as proven 100% are not.......
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Carana on February 02, 2016, 01:33:27 PM
we would need a definition of what is meant by a proven fact according to the court judgement as several as what are recorded as proven 100% are not.......
So you keep saying. How about listing them all for us together with your reasons for believing they are not proven ?
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 02, 2016, 01:42:13 PM
That is not immediately obvious. However to requote an extract from the piece you selected from the Final Police Report.
"This witness places in cause [doubt] the allegation (by the parents) of the daily routine of visits every 30 minutes to check the children who had been left on their own.
In plain English this means the witness places in doubt the parents version of events.
[ ] added
you have said witnesses place in doubt the parents version of events....that is the first true thing you have posted...that does not make the parents proven liars...can you not see that
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 02, 2016, 01:43:39 PM
This is merely your opinion based on very little substance. Do you really think the police wouldn't have called with her on numerous occasions as well as check out her experience with the friend she called in distress? I give up!
Do you know or indeed does anyone know whether the Portuguese police operate a notebook system similar in principle to the UK PNB system?
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 02, 2016, 01:47:29 PM
So you keep saying. How about listing them all for us together with your reasons for believing they are not proven ?
PROVED FACTS
Taking into account the matter considered undisputed in the selection of facts and the decision handed down in due course after producing the matter of evidence and discussing the case, the following facts are demonstrated :
1. The claimants KM and GM are married to each other
2. The claimant Madeleine Beth McCann was born on the 12.05.2003 and is the daughter of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
3. The claimant Sean McCann was born on the 01.02.2005 and is the son of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
4. The claimant Amelie McCann was born on the 01.02.2005 and is the daughter of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
5. The claimant Madeleine Beth McCann has been missing since the 3rd of May of 2007, and the criminal investigation n. 201/07.0GALGS was open by the Public Prosecutor of the Republic for the Portimao District.
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
so the court...who do not accept the alerts as evidence...are now claiming the dogs alerted to human blood and cadaver as PROVEN
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 02, 2016, 01:51:15 PM
You said the some of proven facts aren't proven. I am just asking you the statement maker to put your money where your mouth is and tell us which ones and why. What I may or may not know is irrelevant to your statement.
The fact that you do not know is relevant...the facts are above
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Carana on February 02, 2016, 01:54:31 PM
Taking into account the matter considered undisputed in the selection of facts and the decision handed down in due course after producing the matter of evidence and discussing the case, the following facts are demonstrated :
1. The claimants KM and GM are married to each other
2. The claimant Madeleine Beth McCann was born on the 12.05.2003 and is the daughter of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
3. The claimant Sean McCann was born on the 01.02.2005 and is the son of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
4. The claimant Amelie McCann was born on the 01.02.2005 and is the daughter of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
5. The claimant Madeleine Beth McCann has been missing since the 3rd of May of 2007, and the criminal investigation n. 201/07.0GALGS was open by the Public Prosecutor of the Republic for the Portimao District.
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
so the court...who do not accept the alerts as evidence...are now claiming the dogs alerted to human blood and cadaver as PROVEN
And again, she is quoting from what she was able to find in the files... i.e. that someone had stated it. If one understood as facts that have been ascertained in the investigation those that, with rigour and according to procedural-penal dogmatism, resulted from the investigation, it is believed that only one would deserve that qualification – the disappearance of Madeleine MacCann. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id505.html
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 02, 2016, 01:55:40 PM
Taking into account the matter considered undisputed in the selection of facts and the decision handed down in due course after producing the matter of evidence and discussing the case, the following facts are demonstrated :
1. The claimants KM and GM are married to each other
2. The claimant Madeleine Beth McCann was born on the 12.05.2003 and is the daughter of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
3. The claimant Sean McCann was born on the 01.02.2005 and is the son of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
4. The claimant Amelie McCann was born on the 01.02.2005 and is the daughter of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
5. The claimant Madeleine Beth McCann has been missing since the 3rd of May of 2007, and the criminal investigation n. 201/07.0GALGS was open by the Public Prosecutor of the Republic for the Portimao District.
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
so the court...who do not accept the alerts as evidence...are now claiming the dogs alerted to human blood and cadaver as PROVEN
So it would appear.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 02, 2016, 01:58:33 PM
It doesn't matter what evidence we dig up from our limited resources and press inventions but the police investigated all this and stated in their final report to the public prosecutor that the checks story was suspect. The public prosecutors thereafter stated it as fact in their archiving report to the Attorney General. The links are all there at the top of page 1 so I suggest you read them.
We don't need to prove anything, the proper authorities in Portugal already did that.
How did they prove it then? Are you saying in Portugal you can be branded a liar by the courts without even having a trial?
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 02, 2016, 02:10:38 PM
How did they prove it then? Are you saying in Portugal you can be branded a liar by the courts without even having a trial? And less of the insults please if you don't mind. I'm not the fool around here.
the courts haven't ..angelo has...he has taken a statement "witnesses doubt the McCanns version of events" to the court stated they had lied...I will leave it to the readers of this forum to decide.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 02, 2016, 02:14:16 PM
I have never seen a judge yet or a court which includes known falsehoods within any judgement.
Proven Facts means exactly that, proven facts!
Did you read what the forum owner wrote earlier on this thread?
Quote
As has already been pointed out, the (damages) Court was not concerned with the evidence of the case itself and certainly never elicited any during the trial. .
Do you understand what that means? Do you disagree?
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 02, 2016, 02:14:40 PM
Obviously the guests to this forum probably already have an interest in this forum and will know what the court found or proved or not proved.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 02, 2016, 02:16:40 PM
And again, she is quoting from what she was able to find in the files... i.e. that someone had stated it. If one understood as facts that have been ascertained in the investigation those that, with rigour and according to procedural-penal dogmatism, resulted from the investigation, it is believed that only one would deserve that qualification – the disappearance of Madeleine MacCann. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id505.html
^^^^^ THIS.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: John on February 02, 2016, 02:24:46 PM
Taking into account the matter considered undisputed in the selection of facts and the decision handed down in due course after producing the matter of evidence and discussing the case, the following facts are demonstrated :
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
Without searching through everything paragraph AR and AS of the 'undisputed facts' ?
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Eleanor on February 02, 2016, 02:25:05 PM
Are we saying that Judges in Portugal have a right to rule on Criminal evidence in the total absence of a Trial, the presence of a Witness, or a Defence?
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 02, 2016, 02:46:36 PM
could someone explain how the proven facts contain unproven facts
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Carana on February 02, 2016, 02:47:24 PM
Are we saying that Judges in Portugal have a right to rule on Criminal evidence in the total absence of a Trial, the presence of a Witness, or a Defence?
Looks like it!
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 02, 2016, 03:04:13 PM
Carana, John and myself have all explained it very well, I think even Alice had a go. The fact that you stubbornly refuse to accept what is blindingly obvious to the rest of us is your problem, or perhaps you're just doing it because you know it winds people up?
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 02, 2016, 03:10:03 PM
Carana, John and myself have all explained it very well, I think even Alice had a go. The fact that you stubbornly refuse to accept what is blindingly obvious to the rest of us is your problem, or perhaps you're just doing it because you know it winds people up?
Nothing you have stated changes the Archive Report regardless of what a judge eight years later attached to her ruling. The police found the checking claim to be unsubstantiated.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: sadie on February 02, 2016, 03:13:46 PM
No Carana, that is what you were appearing to do ?
Now just to help you out, here are the questions I asked you, which you did not respond to.
' So you think the McCann's told the truth about the checking system ?
Can you remind us of how many times on May the 3rd, either of them checked and/or viewed their children directly after going to wine and dine ? '
stephen, I have done this before for you. Why are you choosing not to remember it ?
Mcc's left the apartment at 8.30, having checked that the children were sleeping.
Gerry did first check 35 mins later at 9.05
Kate got up to check at 9'30/9.35 pm, but Matt, who was doing his own check, offered to do it for Kate. Matt went into apartment 5A ,, saw the twins sleeping but Madeleine was out of sight around the corner. All was peaceful so he naturally assumed all was well with Madeleine.
Kate did her check at about 10pm to find Madeleine missing.
So: Arrived 8.30 Gerry checked 9.05 Matt checked 9.35 Kate checked 10.00
Every half hour checked. Matt did an additional audio check by listening at the window (at about 9 pm IIRC.) Despite this Gerry rechecked, presumably he felt that he preferred a sighted check.
Now, stephen will you please stop bringing up this same old chestnut. Seems that by any means you are trying to demean and destroy the Mccanns How about being honest and decent?.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: pathfinder73 on February 02, 2016, 03:27:59 PM
Sadie, Matt and Russ left to check at 9:25 according to them both after their starters not 9:30/35. And Matt said Kate left to check at 9:50 not 10.
"Some minutes later, at 21h25, the deponent went to his apartment to do a further check, he having done that together with ROB who intended to do the same with his two girls. "
"By the way, he clarifies that that news had been communicated to all the friends who were in the Tapas by KM subsequent to her having personally been to her flat to check that her children were well.
The question asked, he relates that she had gone there alone to do that at 21:50. "
"Around 21h25, taking advantage of a pause in the service of the first plate, the deponent left the restaurant with Matthew Oldfield to check on the children."
stephen, I have done this before for you. Why are you choosing not to remember it ?
Mcc's left the apartment at 8.30, having checked that the children were sleeping.
Gerry did first check 35 mins later at 9.05
Kate got up to check at 9'30/9.35 pm, but Matt, who was doing his own check, offered to do it for Kate. Matt went into apartment 5A ,, saw the twins sleeping but Madeleine was out of sight around the corner. All was peaceful so he naturally assumed all was well with Madeleine.
Kate did her check at about 10pm to find Madeleine missing.
So: Arrived 8.30 Gerry checked 9.05 Matt checked 9.35 Kate checked 10.00
Every half hour checked. Matt did an additional audio check by listening at the window (at about 9 pm IIRC.) Despite this Gerry rechecked, presumably he felt that he preferred a sighted check.
Now, stephen will you please stop bringing up this same old chestnut. Seems that by any means you are trying to demean and destroy the Mccanns How about being honest and decent?.
I am also talking about all the evenings and which checks were a tally independently verified.
Also, did gerry mccann actually view his daughter in his 'check' ?
Also, I don't have to 'demean or destroy' the mccanns. They did that themselves, didn't they.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on February 02, 2016, 03:40:29 PM
Obviously the guests to this forum probably already have an interest in this forum and will know what the court found or proved or not proved.
Not from reading threads like these they won't. I haven't followed the McCanns v Amaral trial because it has very little to do with Madeleine's disappearance and seems to hinge instead on the McCanns right to a good name v Amaral's right to freedom of speech.
Working out what has being going on in a lengthy process in Portuguese conducted according to Portuguese law, and throwing in things like Amaral's book, the documentary, and the Archiving Report is beyond most people, even ardent followers of the case.
So most guests are going to be bamboozled by discussion on here about how this case works, and whether the judge ever attempted to establish actual facts concerning the checking as opposed to quoting or summarising stated 'facts' from a book, video or Archiving Report.
The judge does not appear to have been interested in conducting a criminal investigation herself.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 02, 2016, 03:45:46 PM
Carana, John and myself have all explained it very well, I think even Alice had a go. The fact that you stubbornly refuse to accept what is blindingly obvious to the rest of us is your problem, or perhaps you're just doing it because you know it winds people up?
The only ruling which counts at the moment, bar the appeal , is the judge in the case. Your interpretation is irrelevant.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Carana on February 02, 2016, 03:53:39 PM
Sadie, Matt and Russ left to check at 9:25 according to them both after their starters not 9:30/35. And Matt said Kate left to check at 9:50 not 10.
"Some minutes later, at 21h25, the deponent went to his apartment to do a further check, he having done that together with ROB who intended to do the same with his two girls. "
"By the way, he clarifies that that news had been communicated to all the friends who were in the Tapas by KM subsequent to her having personally been to her flat to check that her children were well.
The question asked, he relates that she had gone there alone to do that at 21:50. "
"Around 21h25, taking advantage of a pause in the service of the first plate, the deponent left the restaurant with Matthew Oldfield to check on the children."
Yep, you are right Pfinder about the time they think and state they left to do their checks.
However, to remind you, Pfinder, Matt checked his own first, then went to Russells apartment. Presumably they had a short chat because Russells daughter was poorly, and then Russell let Matt out of the back patio door. Matt walked along the alleyway, up the outside steps and went into 5A. He had time to look at the collection of books that were there before he left, so my bet is that it was about 9.30 actual time when he checked.
Thanks for noticing that. I would go for 9.30 as the time Matt checked 5A [as near as we can work out]
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 02, 2016, 04:05:56 PM
Not from reading threads like these they won't. I haven't followed the McCanns v Amaral trial because it has very little to do with Madeleine's disappearance and seems to hinge instead on the McCanns right to a good name v Amaral's right to freedom of speech.
Working out what has being going on in a lengthy process in Portuguese conducted according to Portuguese law, and throwing in things like Amaral's book, the documentary, and the Archiving Report is beyond most people, even ardent followers of the case.
So most guests are going to be bamboozled by discussion on here about how this case works, and whether the judge ever attempted to establish actual facts concerning the checking as opposed to quoting or summarising stated 'facts' from a book, video or Archiving Report.
The judge does not appear to have been interested in conducting a criminal investigation herself.
She wasn't interested in a criminal investigation. Her court was only interested in whether the McCanns claim for damages had any legs. Considering it as a centipede what the judge ruled equated to 40 legs that walked and 60 that were lame.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 02, 2016, 04:16:32 PM
That's a little bit different from your claim that the Archiving Report confirmed that the McCanns lied, and that this was doubly confirmed by the Damages Judge, a claim you've been repeating for the last two days.
The words matter little, a lie is a lie regardless of what words are used. The Archive clearly stated, "that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children..."
Untruthful and neglectful in the one sentence?
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 02, 2016, 04:21:33 PM
I am also talking about all the evenings and which checks were a tally independently verified.
Also, did gerry mccann actually view his daughter in his 'check' ?
Also, I don't have to 'demean or destroy' the mccanns. They did that themselves, didn't they.
That was something which came to mind earlier, for all we know the checking after they left the apartment at 8.30pm could be a load of hogwash except for the one Wilkins witnessed just before 9.15pm.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 02, 2016, 04:25:06 PM
That was something which came to mind earlier, for all we know the checking after they left the apartment at 8.30pm could be a load of hogwash except for the one Wilkins witnessed just before 9.15pm.
Precisely Angelo.
No verification at all, apart from 10 pm.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Carana on February 02, 2016, 04:49:59 PM
That was something which came to mind earlier, for all we know the checking after they left the apartment at 8.30pm could be a load of hogwash except for the one Wilkins witnessed just before 9.15pm.
Jeremy Wilkins said;
I calculate that I met Gerry on the road between 20h45 and 21h15. I am aware of the importance of this hour and am also aware that the media announced our meeting time as 21h05. Even if this were correct, I have no idea from where such information originated. It is not possible to give you a more exact time. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 02, 2016, 08:53:04 PM
The words matter little, a lie is a lie regardless of what words are used. The Archive clearly stated, "that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children..."
Untruthful and neglectful in the one sentence?
Sorry, can you please highlight the word "untruthful" in the sentence you quoted?
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 02, 2016, 08:57:23 PM
The words matter little, a lie is a lie regardless of what words are used. The Archive clearly stated, "that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children..."
Untruthful and neglectful in the one sentence?
could you highlight untruthful and neglectful.......neither are there
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 02, 2016, 09:00:31 PM
"That night she contacted a friend called EDNA GLYN, who also lives in Praia da Luz, after 23.00, telling her about the situation, who was not surprised at the childs crying."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 02, 2016, 09:12:11 PM
"That night she contacted a friend called EDNA GLYN, who also lives in Praia da Luz, after 23.00, telling her about the situation, who was not surprised at the childs crying."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm
has mrs glynn given a statement to verify this...so its unverified
then the Gaspar statemnets are not independently verified
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 02, 2016, 09:17:06 PM
has mrs glynn given a statement to verify this...so its unverified
then the Gaspar statemnets are not independently verified
As I asked elsewhere or maybe on this thread I tend to lose track as I have a low boredom threshold. Do the Portuguese police operate a police notebook system like the English police do?
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 02, 2016, 10:25:02 PM
Am i? Perhaps you would like to help me. Firstly, Angelo claimed the word untruthful appearaed in the PT AG report, so in what way is my question to him illogical? Does that word appear? If so, kindly underline it for me, many thanks.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 02, 2016, 10:27:04 PM
just thought you seemed quite practiced in trying to make an absolute disaster look like a success
In that particular instance the judge ordered a 60/40 split in court costs with the McCanns paying the 60 % and deffed out 700k of a 1.2MM claim. The 500k awarded is yet to be collected. Work it out for your self.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 02, 2016, 10:29:42 PM
Also from the same report - what could it possibly mean?
Quote
On the 3rd of May 2007, at around 10 p.m., at the Ocean Club, in Praia da Luz, Kate Healy – like her, her husband Gerald and their friends, while dining at the Tapas, did with a periodicity that has not been rigorously established – headed for apartment G5A, in order to check on her three children, who had been left there, asleep;
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Carana on February 02, 2016, 10:32:36 PM
As I asked elsewhere or maybe on this thread I tend to lose track as I have a low boredom threshold. Do the Portuguese police operate a police notebook system like the English police do?
Do you mean a daybook? I'm not sure anyone here could answer that, Alice.
Why do you ask?
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 02, 2016, 10:52:26 PM
Do you mean a daybook? I'm not sure anyone here could answer that, Alice.
Why do you ask?
Because what is written in a PNB in the UK is admissible in court as evidence. If Portugal operate the same system then some evidence will be in PNB and not necessarily broadcast to the general public.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Carana on February 02, 2016, 11:14:30 PM
Because what is written in a PNB in the UK is admissible in court as evidence. If Portugal operate the same system then some evidence will be in PNB and not necessarily broadcast to the general public.
I had a look as to what you meant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_notebook
No idea. They wrote service reports which are in the files. The GNR must have made notes of some description.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 03, 2016, 11:02:05 AM
No idea. They wrote service reports which are in the files. The GNR must have made notes of some description.
The police will have garnered a wealth of information about this case over and above that disseminated to the public. The final police report will have been based on so much more than what we find in the published files. There will have been conversations, faxes, memos, tape recordings, internal notes and God knows what else. It is therefore very dangerous to attempt to undermine something stated in a final summary without the benefit of this knowledge.
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 03, 2016, 12:37:11 PM
The police will have garnered a wealth of information about this case over and above that disseminated to the public. The final police report will have been based on so much more than what we find in the published files. There will have been conversations, faxes, memos, tape recordings, internal notes and God knows what else. It is therefore very dangerous to attempt to undermine something stated in a final summary without the benefit of this knowledge.
I don't think it is dangerous at all There may be nothing to back up your claim that the McCanns lied.....you just don't know
Title: Re: "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.
Post by: ferryman on February 03, 2016, 01:08:33 PM
I don't think it is dangerous at all There may be nothing to back up your claim that the McCanns lied.....you just don't know
You have to admit, Dave, there was stuff available to Amaral not in the files, such as the Amaral contradicted and corrected Prior on the forensic results; or that Prior rang the FSS to berate them on the PJ's powers of arrest.