UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Robittybob1 on February 12, 2017, 04:45:58 AM
-
How could the McCanns prove themselves innocent?
-
They can't prove their innocence, and shouldn't have to. They are innocent in the eyes of any normal justice system.
-
It is a detailed analysis by the SC judges. I see they took the report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida as gospel but that was only Tavares's opinion, but the judges seem to treat it as a fact. It is a fact it was written but the conclusions in it are terribly wrong. Goncalo uses these wrong conclusions to support his thesis, so his thesis is based on an error.
How did the initial judge (the one that banned the book get it "so wrong"?) For the McCann's would not be in such financial strife if the first judge had dismissed their case.
-
It appears to be a huge generation gap. The old school still rules.
-
The part dealing with Tavares' report goes "9. In folios 2587-2602 of the criminal investigation, the 10/9/2007, Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida wrote a report and in particular the following : Given what we could establish, the facts point towards the death of Madeleine McCann during the evening of 3 May 2007, in the apartment 5A of Praia da Luz Ocean Club resort, occupied by the McCann couple and their three children (page 2599) (...)
Taking into account all that was presented in the minutes, it results that :
A) The minor Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz in the evening of May 3, 2007 ;
B) A simulation of abduction took place ;
C) In order to make possible the death of the minor before 22h, a story about checking on the McCann children, as they slept, was invented ;
D) Kate and Gerald McCann are involved in the concealment of the body of their daughter MMC;
E) On this date it seems there is no solid evidence that the death of the minor was not due to a tragic accident;
F) Given what has been confirmed so far, everything indicates that the couple McCann, as self-defence, does not want to deliver immediately and voluntarily the body, existing a high probability...
Page 57
... that the same was removed from the place where it was originally disposed of. This situation is likely to raise questions about the circumstances in which occurred the death of the minor.
Thus we suggest that autos be delivered to the prosecutor of Lagos aiming :
G) A possible new interrogation of assisted witnesses KMC and GMC;
H) Evaluate the adequate measure of constraint to be applied in the case (page 2601)."
Was this all from Tavares's report?
It all seems like his suspicions and nothing of it is based on fact.
-
It seems strange to have an unfinished sentence as part of the the SC judgement.
Page 57:
"11. In folio 3170 of the criminal investigation, on 3/12/2007, the JCI of Portimão issued a decree in which he stated particularly this:
Since the investigation, in these autos, concerns the practice of kidnapping, homicide, exposure or abandonment and concealment of corpse, the first three crimes being punished with a sentence of more than 3 years imprisonment, and since it seems convenient to identify the person who..."
Did they misquote it like that to cast some aspersions on the McCanns innocence? Yes they should identify the person responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, but you can't just assume it was the McCanns.
-
The case remains unsolved.
No 'abductor' has been found, and of course, no forensic evidence of a break in.
The McCann's remain the last known people to see Madeleine alive.
-
The case remains unsolved.
No 'abductor' has been found, and of course, no forensic evidence of a break in.
The McCann's remain the last known people to see Madeleine alive.
You don't know that. You are just making that up.
-
You don't know that. You are just making that up.
Try again bob.
-
Try again bob.
You don't know anything.
Who was this "and since it seems convenient to identify the person who..."?
-
You don't know anything.
Who was this "and since it seems convenient to identify the person who..."?
Don't be ridiculous.
How Madeleine disappeared from the apartment, remains undetermined, as does her fate.
The last known people to see her alive were her parents.
Now time bob for you to get real.
-
The case remains unsolved.
No 'abductor' has been found, and of course, no forensic evidence of a break in.
The McCann's remain the last known people to see Madeleine alive.
If you really believe this when did they last see her?
Don't be ridiculous.
How Madeleine disappeared from the apartment, remains undetermined, as does her fate.
The last known people to see her alive were her parents.
Now time bob for you to get real.
Give me an answer to the above question: when did they last see her?
-
Can't you answer that?
-
How do you know they were the last to see her? When was that?
-
Can't you answer that?
They claim, at some point before they went to the tapas.
-
You don't know anything.
Who was this "and since it seems convenient to identify the person who..."?
Don't be foolish bob.
By the way, you said 'we' are going to complain about the judgement to the Portuguese Supreme Court.
Who is 'we' and what exactly are you going to complain about.
It's the final judgement. You do know that, don't you.
-
They claim, at some point before they went to the tapas.
Is that your best answer? As they looked into the room before they went to Tapas, you believe that, yet when Gerry says he saw her at 9:05 PM you don't believe him!
Don't be foolish bob.
I am having serious doubts about your credibility. I'm being serious.
-
In one thread I asked you whether Madeleine was carried over the boundary of the Ocean Club, I can't remember you answering that either.
-
Is that your best answer? As they looked into the room before they went to Tapas, you believe that, yet when Gerry says he saw her at 9:05 PM you don't believe him!
I am having serious doubts about your credibility. I'm being serious.
Can you cite the statement, when he saw her directly ?
....and do you seriously believe all witnesses in cases, always tell the truth ?
It's your credibility that is under question.
-
In one thread I asked you whether Madeleine was carried over the boundary of the Ocean Club, I can't remember you answering that either.
Why do I need to answer your questions ?
It is purely a voluntary response.
-
Don't be foolish bob.
By the way, you said 'we' are going to complain about the judgement to the Portuguese Supreme Court.
Who is 'we' and what exactly are you going to complain about.
It's the final judgement. You do know that, don't you.
I'm not sure, but if it takes a Revolution I'm for it.
Why do I need to answer your questions ?
It is purely a voluntary response.
You always ask for proof of an abductor, and the person who took her off the OC premises is an abductor.
-
I'm not sure, but if it takes a Revolution I'm for it.
You always ask for proof of an abductor, and the person who took her off the OC premises is an abductor.
If she was taken out of the apartment, it didn't need an abductor, did it bob.
-
Can you cite the statement, when he saw her directly ?
....and do you seriously believe all witnesses in cases, always tell the truth ?
It's your credibility that is under question.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
"----- He followed the normal route up to the rear door, which being open he only had to move [slide] it, that being the way in which he entered [was entering] the lounge, he noted that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought strange, having then put together the thought of MADELEINE having got up to go to sleep in his bedroom so as to avoid the noise produced [created] by her siblings. In this way he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and is certain of this, that the three were sleeping deeply."
-
If she was taken out of the apartment, it didn't need an abductor, did it bob.
Was she hidden on the grounds of the OC or not? Who took her out of the OC grounds if she was taken beyond the boundary?
What about answering this one?
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
"----- He followed the normal route up to the rear door, which being open he only had to move [slide] it, that being the way in which he entered [was entering] the lounge, he noted that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought strange, having then put together the thought of MADELEINE having got up to go to sleep in his bedroom so as to avoid the noise produced [created] by her siblings. In this way he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and is certain of this, that the three were sleeping deeply."
Is this a personal statement ?
This seems written in the third person.
Besides his visit to the apartment, so I heard, was to go to to the toilet.
How could he also know they were sleeping soundly from a distance ?
-
Is this a personal statement ?
This seems written in the third person.
Besides his visit to the apartment, so I heard, was to go to to the toilet.
How could he also know they were sleeping soundly from a distance ?
Some are written like that. He saw them. He also went to the toilet, so he says, but he could be lying about that too.
Quote Stephen "....and do you seriously believe all witnesses in cases, always tell the truth ?"
Do you pick and choose which bits to believe?
-
Some are written like that. He saw them. He also went to the toilet, so he says, but he could be lying about that too.
Quote Stephen "....and do you seriously believe all witnesses in cases, always tell the truth ?"
Do you pick and choose which bits to believe?
I prefer verification of statements, but that';s not always possible.
Then you look for inconsistencies in accounts.
-
I prefer verification of statements, but that';s not always possible.
Then you look for inconsistencies in accounts.
So do I. There are plenty of interviews where Gerry explains his visit at 9:05 PM
-
Don't be ridiculous.
How Madeleine disappeared from the apartment, remains undetermined, as does her fate.
The last known people to see her alive were her parents.
Now time bob for you to get real.
So do you accept Gerry saw her at around 9:05 PM? And then what happens at 9:30 PM?
-
So do you accept Gerry saw her at around 9:05 PM? And then what happens at 9:30 PM?
' Gerry McCann went to the apartment at 9.05pm, when all the children were sleeping soundly and Madeleine was still in her bed, he says.
The police in Portugal, however, have never accepted the McCanns’ evidence as undisputed. They initially regarded the McCanns as suspects, ..............'.
I didn't paste the rest of that sentence as the PJ never claimed that. It's just another lie in the UK media.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/16/madeleine-mccann-latest-are-police-any-closer-to-knowing-the-tru/
-
It appears to be a huge generation gap. The old school still rules.
Which is actually the opposite of what has happened. The country that was Portugal before 1974 would not have had freedom of speech enshrined as one of their most important freedoms.
-
' Gerry McCann went to the apartment at 9.05pm, when all the children were sleeping soundly and Madeleine was still in her bed, he says.
The police in Portugal, however, have never accepted the McCanns’ evidence as undisputed. They initially regarded the McCanns as suspects, ..............'.
I didn't paste the rest of that sentence as the PJ never claimed that. It's just another lie in the UK media.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/16/madeleine-mccann-latest-are-police-any-closer-to-knowing-the-tru/
Don't worry about everyone else do you believe Gerry saw Madeleine at 9:05 PM?
-
Don't worry about everyone else do you believe Gerry saw Madeleine at 9:05 PM?
I have already stated bob, I don't believe the Mccann's version of events as regards abduction.
However, you know that, if you had been paying attention.
As to what Mccann did at 9.05 pm, nobody else knows, do they.
-
I have already stated bob, I don't believe the Mccann's version of events as regards abduction.
However, you know that, if you had been paying attention.
As to what Mccann did at 9.05 pm, nobody else knows, do they.
We started this argument because you said the McCanns were the last to see Madeleine alive, but we are trying to find out when that last time was. You still haven't clearly stated whether this was a 9:05 PM or not.
We are not talking about your favourite topic of abduction. This is about parents checking kids only.
-
We started this argument because you said the McCanns were the last to see Madeleine alive, but we are trying to find out when that last time was. You still haven't clearly stated whether this was a 9:05 PM or not.
We are not talking about your favourite topic of abduction. This is about parents checking kids only.
I have made my views very clear bob.
Try reading again.
-
Which is actually the opposite of what has happened. The country that was Portugal before 1974 would not have had freedom of speech enshrined as one of their most important freedoms.
That could well have depended on whose Free Speach we are talking about.
-
That could well have depended on whose Free Speach we are talking about.
Not sure what you mean.
-
Not sure what you mean.
I do .
-
That could well have depended on whose Free Speach we are talking about.
The McCann's have certainly had free speech for nearly 10 years.
-
The McCann's have certainly had free speech for nearly 10 years.
No they haven't - they were under judicial secrecy for a year or so.
-
No they haven't - they were under judicial secrecy for a year or so.
Then we have the sources close to the McCann's. @)(++(*
-
Not sure what you mean.
People in Portugal to this day can still be convicted if they say something unpleasant about a lawyer or a judge, let alone The President, even if it is true.
While An ex PJ Officer can say what he likes about the hoi poloi.
Meanwhile, a convicted torturer has his word taken as gospel.
-
Then we have the sources close to the McCann's. @)(++(*
That's a funny definition of freedom!
-
That's a funny definition of freedom!
The McCann's leaked like sieves, through their sources.
Mostly, of course through their spokesman Clarence Mitchell.
So where did I refer to freedom ?
-
How could the McCanns prove themselves innocent?
People are not required to prove their innocence, it is up to the Judiciary to prove then guilty. Being made arguidos doesn't make a person guilty in Portugal any more than being questioned under caution makes a person guilty in the UK. Their mistake was assuming that having their arguido status removed was equal to being cleared. It wasn't.
-
People in Portugal to this day can still be convicted if they say something unpleasant about a lawyer or a judge, let alone The President, even if it is true.
While An ex PJ Officer can say what he likes about the hoi poloi.
Meanwhile, a convicted torturer has his word taken as gospel.
Nonsense as usual.
-
Nonsense as usual.
What have I said that isn't true?
-
People in Portugal to this day can still be convicted if they say something unpleasant about a lawyer or a judge, let alone The President, even if it is true.
While An ex PJ Officer can say what he likes about the hoi poloi.
Meanwhile, a convicted torturer has his word taken as gospel.
Hoi polloi! they're Doctors don't you know,what,what.
-
People in Portugal to this day can still be convicted if they say something unpleasant about a lawyer or a judge, let alone The President, even if it is true.
While An ex PJ Officer can say what he likes about the hoi poloi.
Meanwhile, a convicted torturer has his word taken as gospel.
Are you suggesting a conviction was for torture? cite?
-
Are you suggesting a conviction was for torture? cite?
Not Amaral. no.
-
Not Amaral. no.
To whom is this in reference to then?
People in Portugal to this day can still be convicted if they say something unpleasant about a lawyer or a judge, let alone The President, even if it is true.
While An ex PJ Officer can say what he likes about the hoi poloi.
Meanwhile, a convicted torturer has his word taken as gospel.
-
To whom is this in reference to then?
PJ officer Tavares de Almeida was convicted of torture.
www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2140.msg71031#msg71031
A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation where he concludes, after analyzing all the evidence gathered, that the child is dead and the parents were responsible for cadaver occultation, and the entire GROUP was lying since the first day of the investigation.
www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
-
Judgement Page 67:
"Of all those circumstances does not result, in our view, that underlying the book, the documentary and interview, exists an defamatory intention against the appellants, i.e an animus injuriandi, but rather an animus informandi and an animus defendendi. The opinion expressed by the respondent is sufficiently detailed in an intelligible and logical assessment of the facts and elements of evidence gathered in the investigation"
-
Don't worry about everyone else do you believe Gerry saw Madeleine at 9:05 PM?
Apparently she was asleep on top of the covers but the covers were folded back 8)--))
"Madeleine was lying down on her left side, she was completely uncovered, that is, lying on top of the covers."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
Meanwhile the other says:
"She was under the covers, she thinks because she was a bit cold."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
"With respect to the bed where his daughter was on the night she disappeared he says that she slept uncovered, as usual when she was hot, with the bedclothes folded down."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Just one more thing.............
-
PJ officer Tavares de Almeida was convicted of torture.
www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2140.msg71031#msg71031
A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation where he concludes, after analyzing all the evidence gathered, that the child is dead and the parents were responsible for cadaver occultation, and the entire GROUP was lying since the first day of the investigation.
www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
Thanks.
-
Apparently she was asleep on top of the covers but the covers were folded back 8)--))
"Madeleine was lying down on her left side, she was completely uncovered, that is, lying on top of the covers."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
Meanwhile the other says:
"She was under the covers, she thinks because she was a bit cold."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
"With respect to the bed where his daughter was on the night she disappeared he says that she slept uncovered, as usual when she was hot, with the bedclothes folded down."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Just one more thing.............
All that means is that she was put to bed under the covers but ended up on top of them later.
-
All that means is that she was put to bed under the covers but ended up on top of them later.
Perhaps not, from recollection, as the bed covers were virtually undisturbed.
They looked from the photos, gently folded over.
-
All that means is that she was put to bed under the covers but ended up on top of them later.
So she started off under the covers but with them still folded down?
-
Don't worry about everyone else do you believe Gerry saw Madeleine at 9:05 PM?
Believe is the operaive word here.
Convinced would be better used. Not many people are convinced by Gerry's statement. I find it to be wholly wreckless that a father who had agreed to leave the children alone every night before they left the UK, to adapt a 'listening' service would suddenly offer an account of the last time he saw His daughter alive, was that night he claims she disappeared. Seriously? door ajar?
I don't think we managed to asertain who was the last person to put the children to bed and leave the door 'ajar'. Kate thinks it was her, Gerry wouldn't know how ajar the door was unless they took to measuring before and after Maddies alleged disappearance from the room.
Also. Gerry 'thought' someone may have been hiding behind the door , but he didn't check, he left the children alone anyway.
-
So she started off under the covers but with them still folded down?
Exactly G! The bed looked like it was ready for someone to be put to bed. I used to do this for my children when they were younger, after their bathtime, still do for visitors!
-
I would like to thank an ex-poster on here, Anne Guedes, for her work in translation of the Supreme Court Judgement.
8((()*/ 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
Believe is the operaive word here.
Convinced would be better used. Not many people are convinced by Gerry's statement. I find it to be wholly wreckless that a father who had agreed to leave the children alone every night before they left the UK, to adapt a 'listening' service would suddenly offer an account of the last time he saw His daughter alive, was that night he claims she disappeared. Seriously? door ajar?
I don't think we managed to asertain who was the last person to put the children to bed and leave the door 'ajar'. Kate thinks it was her, Gerry wouldn't know how ajar the door was unless they took to measuring before and after Maddies alleged disappearance from the room.
Also. Gerry 'thought' someone may have been hiding behind the door , but he didn't check, he left the children alone anyway.
It's call "Hindsight." Please don't try to present it as something else.
-
Exactly G! The bed looked like it was ready for someone to be put to bed. I used to do this for my children when they were younger, after their bathtime, still do for visitors!
Mostly people then 'tuck' the child in by lifting the covers up to the child's shoulders when they're in bed. It would be difficult for Madeleine to 'snuggle down' as Kate said she did if the covers were left folded back.
-
It's call "Hindsight." Please don't try to present it as something else.
Hindsight? Oh I don't think so. This is a man who was still trying to convice people that an abductor was present, when he, for the first time all week, 'physically' checked his children, He is also tryng to ad lib an abductor story.IMO.
What he forgot to tell us was; after thinking someone was in the room how did this abductor get into the apartment?
hmm? smashed window? jemmied shutters, whooshing curtains? door kicked in? Or did he /she/ they/ walk in through an unlocked door perhaps?... unlocked door would throw up that question of walked and wandered...
-
Hindsight? Oh I don't think so. This is a man who was still trying to convice people that an abductor was present, when he, for the first time all week, 'physically' checked his children, He is also tryng to ad lib an abductor story.IMO.
What he forgot to tell us was; after thinking someone was in the room how did this abductor get into the apartment?
hmm? smashed window? jemmied shutters, whooshing curtains? door kicked in? Or did he /she/ they/ walk in through an unlocked door perhaps?... unlocked door would throw up that question of walked and wandered...
Gerry did most definitely not say that he walked out of the apartment thinking that there might be an abductor hiding behind the door.
-
I would like to thank an ex-poster on here, Anne Guedes, for her work in translation of the Supreme Court Judgement.
8((()*/ 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Seconded Stephen. Sterling work as ever fro Anne.
-
Gerry did most definitely not say that he walked out of the apartment thinking that there might be an abductor hiding behind the door.
How did he think the door had opened if Madeleine was still as he'd left her?
-
How did he think the door had opened if Madeleine was still as he'd left her?
This has got to stop. It is grossly libellous to suggest that Gerry deliberately left his daughter under such circumstances.
I will be deleting any further post in the vein.
-
Miss Taken Identity.
There is always a way to describe events without resorting to borderline libel. Please have another go.
-
How did he think the door had opened if Madeleine was still as he'd left her?
It was apparently a windy night so opening the patio door would have the effect of pushing the internal doors open.
-
This has got to stop. It is grossly libellous to suggest that Gerry deliberately left his daughter under such circumstances.
I will be deleting any further post in the vein.
That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm actually saying the opposite.
-
It was apparently a windy night so opening the patio door would have the effect of pushing the internal doors open.
Based on that...we still have the unexplaned measurment of 'ajar' how would Gerry KNow how much 'ajar' it was? to provoke his suspicion something may be wrong ( althought he did initially think Maddie may have opened it as she may have gone to the tioilet). And we also have the querie of how did the abductor enter the apartment- It is looking like we are being told to accept the 'abductor' came through a window ( whooshing curtains) if it was windy the door would have slammed shut from an open wndow? So which is it? HOw did the abductor enter the apartment. Gerry says he 'felt' someone was nehind the door. just after he left Jane tells us she saw the 'abductor' carry off Maddie. no whooshing curtains nothing. The story does not make any sense at all when you break it down into little sections.
-
The opinion of members is in many instances well documented and falls far outwith the remit of this thread.
Which concerns ... The McCann's innocence in the eyes of the law
-
The opinion of members is in many instances well documented and falls far outwith the remit of this thread.
Which concerns ... The McCann's innocence in the eyes of the law
No such thing.
In the eyes of the law it's "Guilty" or "Not Guilty"
-
People are not required to prove their innocence, it is up to the Judiciary to prove then guilty. Being made arguidos doesn't make a person guilty in Portugal any more than being questioned under caution makes a person guilty in the UK. Their mistake was assuming that having their arguido status removed was equal to being cleared. It wasn't.
Where does it state that they thought this?
-
Where does it state that they thought this?
Well their Lawyer seemed to be of that opinion?
-
Judgement Page 67:
"Of all those circumstances does not result, in our view, that underlying the book, the documentary and interview, exists an defamatory intention against the appellants, i.e an animus injuriandi, but rather an animus informandi and an animus defendendi. The opinion expressed by the respondent is sufficiently detailed in an intelligible and logical assessment of the facts and elements of evidence gathered in the investigation"
That seems biased.
-
Apparently she was asleep on top of the covers but the covers were folded back 8)--))
"Madeleine was lying down on her left side, she was completely uncovered, that is, lying on top of the covers."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
Meanwhile the other says:
"She was under the covers, she thinks because she was a bit cold."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
"With respect to the bed where his daughter was on the night she disappeared he says that she slept uncovered, as usual when she was hot, with the bedclothes folded down."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Just one more thing.............
Are you out to deceive PF? Those two observations are about 2 hours apart.
"She says that she doesn't know if the children were in the same positions when they left the apartment.
It was around 7:15PM when they put the children to bed and checked they were sleeping, she says she is sure of this."
-
How did he think the door had opened if Madeleine was still as he'd left her?
We wouldn't be allowed to say.
-
No such thing.
In the eyes of the law it's "Guilty" or "Not Guilty"
Didn't the SC judges use the words innocence, and they stayed away from making judgements on whether the McCanns were guilty or not guilty?
-
Well their Lawyer seemed to be of that opinion?
So there is a statement to this fact in the judgement. I'll look out for it. It is taking sometime for me to understand the layout of the judgement.
-
Are you out to deceive PF? Those two observations are about 2 hours apart.
"She says that she doesn't know if the children were in the same positions when they left the apartment.
It was around 7:15PM when they put the children to bed and checked they were sleeping, she says she is sure of this."
Good try but no cigar. I know these statements.
"Moreover, he says that with respect to Madeleine she was in the same position in which he had left her at the beginning of the night." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
-
Good try but no cigar. I know these statements.
"Moreover, he says that with respect to Madeleine she was in the same position in which he had left her at the beginning of the night." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
That is still possible because they are not checking at the same time.
-
That is still possible because they are not checking at the same time.
In fantasy luzland anything is possible but not after investigating the facts there are contradictions and unanswered questions. How can the three witnesses who last saw Madeleine in the hours before she disappeared not agree?
The parents said they put Madeleine to sleep that night and contradicted each other on whether she was on top of the covers or under them. If they didn't know they could have said but they didn't. Before that the normal routine is that the kids go out to play (they missed out on the beach trip with the others). On 3 May there was a normal routine change due to tiredness then a friend arrived who couldn't remember seeing Kate in a towel. That witness didn't say the kids were tired. I could continue with more contradictions about that time period but they're known. Eddie later found CC that was on the bed that night but that's no contradiction.
-
In fantasy luzland anything is possible but not after investigating the facts there are contradictions and unanswered questions. How can the three witnesses who last saw Madeleine in the hours before she disappeared not agree?
The parents said they put Madeleine to sleep that night and contradicted each other on whether she was on top of the covers or under them. If they didn't know they could have said but they didn't. Before that the normal routine is that the kids go out to play (they missed out on the beach trip with the others). On 3 May there was a normal routine change due to tiredness then a friend arrived and couldn't remember seeing Kate in a towel. That witness didn't say the kids were tired. I could continue with more contradictions about that time period but they're known. Eddie later found CC that was on the bed that night but that's no contradiction.
Did you say Kate covered her up because she was cold? So that to me sounds like she was lying out of her blankets prior to that. One hour later Gerry finds she is uncovered. OK, something has happened to her in the previous hour.
Cuddle cat never elicited an alert by Eddie.
-
At 19H00, he made his way to the apartment, finding KATE and the children playing on the sofa. About 10 to 15 minutes later, they took the children to the bedroom and they all sat on MADELEINE'S bed to read a story. At 19H30, the twins were already in their respective cots and MADELEINE in the bed next to the bedroom door.
With respect to the bed where his daughter was on the night she disappeared he says that she slept uncovered, as usual when she was hot, with the bedclothes folded down.
Moreover, he says that with respect to Madeleine she was in the same position in which he had left her at the beginning of the night. Madeleine was lying down on her left side, she was completely uncovered, that is, lying on top of the covers.
GM: Madeleine on top of the covers
During the story Madeleine was lying on the pillow, alert and paying attention to the story. After both twins kissed Madeleine, she thinks that Gerry was in the room, and each (Kate and Gerry) placed a twin in its crib at the same time, between Madeleine's bed and the bed next to the window. They also kissed Madeleine, who was lying down. She was under the covers, she thinks because she was a bit cold.
KM: Under the covers
-
Did you say Kate covered her up because she was cold? So that to me sounds like she was lying out of her blankets prior to that. One hour later Gerry finds she is uncovered. OK, something has happened to her in the previous hour.
Cuddle cat never elicited an alert by Eddie.
Children often climb out over their bed covers if too warm, every parent knows that.
-
Children often climb out over their bed covers if too warm, every parent knows that.
The child was said to be asleep before they left and seen in the same position and still asleep at around 9pm according to her father.
"Moreover, he says that with respect to Madeleine she was in the same position in which he had left her at the beginning of the night. Madeleine was lying down on her left side, she was completely uncovered, that is, lying on top of the covers."
-
At 19H00, he made his way to the apartment, finding KATE and the children playing on the sofa. About 10 to 15 minutes later, they took the children to the bedroom and they all sat on MADELEINE'S bed to read a story. At 19H30, the twins were already in their respective cots and MADELEINE in the bed next to the bedroom door.
Moreover, he says that with respect to Madeleine she was in the same position in which he had left her at the beginning of the night. Madeleine was lying down on her left side, she was completely uncovered, that is, lying on top of the covers.
GM: Madeleine on top of the covers
During the story Madeleine was lying on the pillow, alert and paying attention to the story. After both twins kissed Madeleine, she thinks that Gerry was in the room, and each (Kate and Gerry) placed a twin in its crib at the same time, between Madeleine's bed and the bed next to the window. They also kissed Madeleine, who was lying down. She was under the covers, she thinks because she was a bit cold.
KM: Under the covers
That is exactly what I mean, Kate covered her up after Gerry had left. So Gerry remembers her on top of the covers but Kate puts her under the covers. Later she is on top of the covers but that is 1 and 3/4 hours later.
Anything could have happened in that time.
Children often climb out over their bed covers if too warm, every parent knows that.
Exactly. and it only takes a moment to tuck them in.
-
The child was said to be asleep before they left and seen in the same position and still asleep at around 9pm according to her father.
"Moreover, he says that with respect to Madeleine she was in the same position in which he had left her at the beginning of the night. Madeleine was lying down on her left side, she was completely uncovered, that is, lying on top of the covers."
That doesn't preclude things happening between those two observations. Gerry might think it is the same, and that is true, but it is only a presumption for Gerry to think nothing happened in between times.
-
One said she was cold the other said she was hot. If you can't see the contradiction between them then that's fine with me. I know what I think.
-
One said she was cold the other said she was hot. If you can't see the contradiction between them then that's fine with me. I know what I think.
One parent might looked at her and thought she was hot and the other touches her and thought her skin felt cold. It happens.
-
She didn't say she touched to check, she said she was under the covers. Let's stick to the statements. The timeline now goes back a short time to the next contradictions.
"After the children's bath, already alone, she put pyjamas and nappies on the twins, gave them each a glass of milk and biscuits. Before bathing the children and because it was early, they had thought of taking them to the recreation area, but then decided against this because of tiredness......... Close to 6:00PM Gerry went to the tennis courts, soon after the children had finished their bath."
"After showering, at around 6:30/6:40PM and while she was getting dry, she heard somebody knocking at the veranda door. She wrapped herself in a towel and went to see who it was. This door was closed but not locked as Gerry had left by this door. She confirmed it was David Payne, because he called out and had opened the door slightly. David's visit was to help her to take the children to the recreation area." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
"During the afternoon of that day the rest of the group members, including the children, were at the beach, [they] having returned at 18H30, the time at which he saw DAVID next to the tennis court. DAVID went to visit KATE and the children and returned close to 19H00." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Kate might be needing help to look after the three children, because they intended to bring them to the recreation area after their showers. He thinks that David offered to check if Kate needed help, which he did, and returned minutes later. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
"The three children were all you know dressed you know in their pyjamas, you know they looked immaculate, you know they were just like angels, they all looked so happy and well looked after and content."
00:41:00 1485 "Okay, so now what I'm gonna try and ask you to recollect, what everybody was wearing.'
Reply "I'm afraid that is, you know I'm, I cannot recall at all. I know that's, you'd think that'd be an obvious thing to remember, I cannot remember. As I say the, from the children point of view predominantly I can remember the, you know, white, but I couldn't say exactly what they were wearing. Err''
1485 "But could you remember what Kate was wearing for example''
Reply "I can't, no.'
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
Kate and the kids, I think, as I said earlier, weren't there and, you know, they, as Gerry said, were just absolutely knackered and Kate was getting them bathed and ready for bed. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
-
if you can see serious errors in there just explain it please?
-
Who has deleted my response?
-
Who has deleted my response?
You may not have posted it properly. This site does that sometimes. It times out.
-
It was deleted and a mod was viewing the thread when it went so I don't think I'm allowed to point out more contradictions here 8(0(*
-
It was deleted and a mod was viewing the thread when it went so I don't think I'm allowed to point out more contradictions here 8(0(*
Try again for they are interesting and very innocuous. Did they involve David? I know they are super touchy about his name.
-
If witnesses cannot agree then there's an important reason for the anomalies. You find the reason to uncover the truth. Repeating 'No Comment' don't cut it nor help but it makes you more suspected.
-
If witnesses cannot agree then there's an important reason for the anomalies. You find the reason to uncover the truth. Repeating 'No Comment' don't cut it nor help but it makes you more suspected.
Maybe but it is safe for you are not going to make stupid mistakes if all you say is no comment.
-
Maybe but it is safe for you are not going to make stupid mistakes if all you say is no comment.
Are you suggesting Kate might have made a stupid mistake? Oh dear.
-
Are you suggesting Kate might have made a stupid mistake? Oh dear.
That is not what Robby's comment says.
-
Sounds very much like it to me
-
Sounds very much like it to me
Then there is something wrong with your comprehension of the English Language. Try reading it slowly.
-
Maybe but it is safe for you are not going to make stupid mistakes if all you say is no comment.
That is largely gibberish.
Can you please re-type that, with punctuation ?
-
Then there is something wrong with your comprehension of the English Language. Try reading it slowly.
There is nothing wrong with my comprehension - if you say no comment, you cannot make a mistake.
What is your interpretation?
-
You cannot really prove innocence. Short of having concrete alibis and such, but in this case even that wouldn't work as noone knows exactly when 'it' happened and what exactly 'it' was.
I feel the only reason the Supreme Courts decision included the part about the McCanns not being cleared was because they have constantly claimed in our press and such that they were indeed 'found innocent'. I have not read the whole case about this but I also feel its possible Duarte used the 'proof of innocence' in her argument against Amaral and as such, it needed to be pointed out that this was untrue.
-
You cannot really prove innocence. Short of having concrete alibis and such, but in this case even that wouldn't work as noone knows exactly when 'it' happened and what exactly 'it' was.
I feel the only reason the Supreme Courts decision included the part about the McCanns not being cleared was because they have constantly claimed in our press and such that they were indeed 'found innocent'. I have not read the whole case about this but I also feel its possible Duarte used the 'proof of innocence' in her argument against Amaral and as such, it needed to be pointed out that this was untrue.
Exactly right. The judges replied to Duarte's incorrect claim, that's all.
-
You cannot really prove innocence. Short of having concrete alibis and such, but in this case even that wouldn't work as noone knows exactly when 'it' happened and what exactly 'it' was.
I feel the only reason the Supreme Courts decision included the part about the McCanns not being cleared was because they have constantly claimed in our press and such that they were indeed 'found innocent'. I have not read the whole case about this but I also feel its possible Duarte used the 'proof of innocence' in her argument against Amaral and as such, it needed to be pointed out that this was untrue.
"Found innocent" really equates to "not found guilty" in Glaswegian I presume. They tend to speak in a funny dialect up that way!
-
"The case was not shelved because prosecutors believed that Kate and Gerry were innocent, but because of a lack of evidence," the statement said.
https://www.publimetro.cl/cl/mundo/2017/02/11/madeleine-mccann-nuevo-informe-judicial-apunta-hacia-padres-maddie.html
I have the tendency to read that as ""The case was not shelved because prosecutors believed that Kate and Gerry were innocent, but because of a lack of evidence against Kate and Gerry'."
Isn't the fact that there is a lack of evidence against the parents a good reason to rule out the parents? Then to start looking in other directions? They knew about Smithman couldn't they have looked into that deeper?
-
"The case was not shelved because prosecutors believed that Kate and Gerry were innocent, but because of a lack of evidence," the statement said.
https://www.publimetro.cl/cl/mundo/2017/02/11/madeleine-mccann-nuevo-informe-judicial-apunta-hacia-padres-maddie.html
I have the tendency to read that as ""The case was not shelved because prosecutors believed that Kate and Gerry were innocent, but because of a lack of evidence against Kate and Gerry'."
Isn't the fact that there is a lack of evidence against the parents a good reason to rule out the parents? Then to start looking in other directions? They knew about Smithman couldn't they have looked into that deeper?
That's what OG has been doing - without much success, it would seem, so perhaps they are on the wrong track as well.
-
What I can't quite get my head around is that the Book came out in 2008 but it wasn't till 2015 that the McCanns won the first case. So they suffered the effects for up to 7 years. How come it took so long for the result?
"On Tuesday, Portugal’s Supreme Court upheld a decision by the Lisbon appeal court to revoke a ruling that Gonçalo Amaral, a former police inspector, pay €500,000 to the parents of Madeleine McCann, the British toddler who
disappeared in the Algarve in 2007.
The Lisbon appeal court last April struck down a 2015 lower court ruling that Amaral should pay the sum to Kate and Gerry McCann for damages caused by the publication of his book: ‘Maddie: the Truth of the Lie’."
http://theportugalnews.com/news/lisbon-supreme-court-rules-in-favour-of-ex-detective-in-mccann-libel-case/40940
So the appeal was in April 2016 and the SC ruling in Feb 2017. Dragging on.
-
What I can't quite get my head around is that the Book came out in 2008 but it wasn't till 2015 that the McCanns won the first case. So they suffered the effects for up to 7 years. How come it took so long for the result?
"On Tuesday, Portugal’s Supreme Court upheld a decision by the Lisbon appeal court to revoke a ruling that Gonçalo Amaral, a former police inspector, pay €500,000 to the parents of Madeleine McCann, the British toddler who
disappeared in the Algarve in 2007.
The Lisbon appeal court last April struck down a 2015 lower court ruling that Amaral should pay the sum to Kate and Gerry McCann for damages caused by the publication of his book: ‘Maddie: the Truth of the Lie’."
http://theportugalnews.com/news/lisbon-supreme-court-rules-in-favour-of-ex-detective-in-mccann-libel-case/40940
So the appeal was in April 2017 and the SC ruling in Feb 2017. Dragging on.
In large part, because Amaral seized every opportunity to delay, obfuscate and obstruct, working his way through innumerable lawyers (whom he sacked) en route to (eventually) coming to court.
The lawyer who (eventually) represented Amaral pleaded with the court to let proceedings be in camera (or secret) (sic) "to protect Madeleine lest Madeleine be alive".
Amaral was allowed to get away with it, and ultimately went on to win an appeal.
-
"Found innocent" really equates to "not found guilty" in Glaswegian I presume. They tend to speak in a funny dialect up that way!
Having served on a jury in Scotland the verdict is Not guilty, not found innocent.
We don't all speak like Rab C Nesbitt 8)><(
-
Having served on a jury in Scotland the verdict is Not guilty, not found innocent.
We don't all speak like Rab C Nesbitt 8)><(
There has been no court case so it is a bit different. But thanks, for my comment was a joke really, for we had discussed that the word "jemmied" meant "forced" in Glaswegian.
So what did Gerry mean when they were cleared?
-
Having served on a jury in Scotland the verdict is Not guilty, not found innocent.
We don't all speak like Rab C Nesbitt 8)><(
I remember reading somewhere that Scottish people speak in a more grammatically correct way than English people.
-
There has been no court case so it is a bit different. But thanks, for my comment was a joke really, for we had discussed the the word "jemmied" meant "forced" in Glaswegian.
So what did Gerry mean when they were cleared?
as I have said before the word cleared has no precise legal meaning..
-
as I have said before the word cleared has no precise legal meaning..
There are plenty of occasion where a perp was cleared but brought back into the investigation when new information came along.
-
I remember reading somewhere that Scottish people speak in a more grammatically correct way than English people.
Perhaps in some parts of Scotland that may be correct but incorrect grammar is fairly common.
Inverness apparently is where the purest form of English is spoken in the UK.I'm not too sure if this is still the case.
sorry....off topic.
-
Perhaps in some parts of Scotland that may be correct but incorrect grammar is fairly common.
Inverness apparently is where the purest form of English is spoken in the UK.I'm not too sure if this is still the case.
sorry....off topic.
I was a Bus Conductress in Glasgow, once upon a time, so I don't have a problem with what they are saying, bad grammar or not.
Sorry, Off Topic. But it's how I found out what Jemmied means.
-
There has been no court case so it is a bit different. But thanks, for my comment was a joke really, for we had discussed that the word "jemmied" meant "forced" in Glaswegian.
So what did Gerry mean when they were cleared?
Perhaps all suspicion removed. He wouldn't be using legal language just saying they were cleared of being suspects. IMO.
ps. I know you were joking.
-
I was a Bus Conductress in Glasgow, once upon a time, so I don't have a problem with what they are saying, bad grammar or not.
Sorry, Off Topic. But it's how I found out what Jemmied means.
My father in law bought a Billy Connolly LP. but gave it to me because he couldn't understand what Billy was saying. I couldn't understand my father in law's accent though. Although he was a Lancastrian like me he used some quite obscure old fashioned local words. Hamish Imlach's accent and speed of delivery defeated me. Sorry, I'm off topic too.
-
My father in law bought a Billy Connolly LP. but gave it to me because he couldn't understand what Billy was saying. I couldn't understand my father in law's accent though. Although he was a Lancastrian like me he used some quite obscure old fashioned local words. Hamish Imlach's accent and speed of delivery defeated me. Sorry, I'm off topic too.
My Yorkshire Father in Law always referred to me as Thee. I though that was lovely, although I couldn't understand much else of what he said.
Tis nice to have a few anecdotes now and again. But no doubt the Black Hand Gang will delete all of this later.
-
My Yorkshire Father in Law always referred to me as Thee. I though that was lovely, although I couldn't understand much else of what he said.
Tis nice to have a few anecdotes now and again. But no doubt the Black Hand Gang will delete all of this later.
Don't worry. It is all consigned to memory.
The House of Lancaster. Scotland in days gone by. Pets de Nonne.
-
Don't worry. It is all consigned to memory.
The House of Lancaster. Scotland in days gone by. Pets de Nonne.
I've got an ancient, blind and demented Pug, if anyone's interested. But she wouldn't make much of a recipe.
-
Perhaps all suspicion removed. He wouldn't be using legal language just saying they were cleared of being suspects. IMO.
ps. I know you were joking.
You are absolutely right
Cleared has no precise definition
They were official suspects
Now they are not
All the evidence used to make them suspects was flawed
Cleared seems fair enough
-
It's a pertinent question and for me is twofold. I suspect that the Scotland Yard investigation does believe the McCanns are innocent, however I would suggest that the Portuguese side of the investigation have their doubts. Personally I think it is clear that the PJ initially suspected the McCann's involvement hence why Amaral decided to take the investigation in a particular direction. Although he does seem to have been open to other theories based around witness testimony.
I believe that the Scotland Yard team have never really thought of the McCanns as being anything other than innocent
-
It's a pertinent question and for me is twofold. I suspect that the Scotland Yard investigation does believe the McCanns are innocent, however I would suggest that the Portuguese side of the investigation have their doubts. Personally I think it is clear that the PJ initially suspected the McCann's involvement hence why Amaral decided to take the investigation in a particular direction. Although he does seem to have been open to other theories based around witness testimony.
I believe that the Scotland Yard team have never really thought of the McCanns as being anything other than innocent
At one time I would have vehemently disagreed with you regarding the Portuguese police. As I understood that the purpose of drafting in the Oporto team to review the case was to precisely circumvent any remaining bias their might have been from Amaral's home team.
Now having witnessed the importance of 'honour' to the Portuguese psyche ... I'll leave my options open on that one.
-
A brief reminder, needed it seems, yet again.
No matter the bluster, the disappearance of Madeleine does remain a mystery. People may have their theories or beliefs, but it is self evident , OG is coming to a close, with nothing tangible in sight.
-
A brief reminder, needed it seems, yet again.
No matter the bluster, the disappearance of Madeleine does remain a mystery. People may have their theories or beliefs, but it is self evident , OG is coming to a close, with nothing tangible in sight.
And a reminder for you
The McCanns are not suspects
-
And a reminder for you
The McCanns are not suspects
Tell me dave, who else has been found in connection to this case, concerning the disappearance of Madeleine Mccann ?
-
Tell me dave, who else has been found in connection to this case, concerning the disappearance of Madeleine Mccann ?
Your post makes no sense
-
Your post makes no sense
It's a statement of fact dave.
Get with it.
-
It's a statement of fact dave.
Get with it.
As it ends in a question mark it is not a statement it's a question and it makes no sense
-
As it ends in a question mark it is not a statement it's a question and it makes no sense
It is very clear cut.
No one else has been found to have been associated with this case.
-
Tell me dave, who else has been found in connection to this case, concerning the disappearance of Madeleine Mccann ?
Kate and Gerry McCann, together with their friends on holiday with them, have all been excluded as potential suspects in the enquiry.
So either Operation Grange has identified the culprits, or it hasn't.
-
It is very clear cut.
No one else has been found to have been associated with this case.
amaral is associated with this case...and lots of others
-
Kate and Gerry McCann, together with their friends on holiday with them, have all been excluded as potential suspects in the enquiry.
So either Operation Grange has identified the culprits, or it hasn't.
Again to remind you, as the crime if any is unknown, how can you exclude potential suspects ?
-
amaral is associated with this case...and lots of others
Not in Madeleine's disappearance.
-
Again to remind you, as the crime if any is unknown, how can you exclude potential suspects ?
I can, and on countless previous occasions, have, cited the archiving dispatch.
Can't be bothered to do so again.
-
I can, and on countless previous occasions, have, cited the archiving dispatch.
Can't be bothered to do so again.
Yes ferryman.
Yet again, you are being selective.
I refer you to the Supreme Court. 8(0(*
-
Not in Madeleine's disappearance.
the mccanns were not involved in maddies disappearance
-
the mccanns were not involved in maddies disappearance
Were you there when Madeleine disappeared.
Rhetorical question of course.
-
Were you there when Madeleine disappeared.
Rhetorical question of course.
should still have a question mark....you werent either so you cannot say the mccanns are invoved
-
should still have a question mark....you werent either so you cannot say the mccanns are invoved
The guilty party/parties if any, remain unknown.
That is a fact dave, get over it.
-
The guilty party/parties if any, remain unknown.
That is a fact dave, get over it.
then you cannot implicate the mccanns....LOL....thats a fact....get over it
-
then you cannot implicate the mccanns....LOL....thats a fact....get over it
Your lack of comprehension seems driven by mantra.
The crime if any, remains unsolved.
-
Your lack of comprehension seems driven by mantra.
The crime if any, remains unsolved.
you cannot implicate the mccanns...... fact
-
you cannot implicate the mccanns...... fact
They remain the last known people to have seen Madeleine.
No else has benn found.
That's two unadulterated facts Dave.
-
They remain the last known people to have seen Madeleine.
No else has benn found.
That's two unadulterated facts Dave.
they have been ruled out by SY.......fact...get over it
-
they have been ruled out by SY.......fact...get over it
I know you're a bit slow on the uptake.
So for the last time, crime if any, undetermined.
Now type your mantra, and it won't change a thing.
-
I know you're a bit slow on the uptake.
So for the last time, crime if any, undetermined.
Now type your mantra, and it won't change a thing.
Parents ruled out
I don't want to change anything
You are in denial
-
It's too late typing your pro-Mccann mantra.
It won't wash.
-
It's too late typing your pro-Mccann mantra.
It won't wash.
Sometimes truth prevails and sometimes it doesn't.
If this libel judgement against the McCanns is not reversed, truth will not have prevailed.
We'll see ....
-
I know you're a bit slow on the uptake.
So for the last time, crime if any, undetermined.
Now type your mantra, and it won't change a thing.
I thought it was you.
-
I thought it was you.
I saw your response before you edited it. 8)--))
How many hours did it take to come up with that? 8(*(
-
Sometimes truth prevails and sometimes it doesn't.
If this libel judgement against the McCanns is not reversed, truth will not have prevailed.
We'll see ....
What truth are you referring to ?
The Mccanns being responsible for setting in motion the chain of events which led to this case ?
No one else has been found to be involved in this case ?
-
What truth are you referring to ?
The Mccanns being responsible for setting in motion the chain of events which led to this case ?
No one else has been found to be involved in this case ?
Can you put a date and time (hour and minute) for the initial stages which led to the chain of events which led to this case? I.e. when did you think it started?
-
Can you put a date and time (hour and minute) for the initial stages which led to the chain of events which led to this case? I.e. when did you think it started?
Once upon a bittybob.................. 8**8:/:
-
Once upon a bittybob.................. 8**8:/:
It is a good question which deserves an intelligent response.
-
Can you put a date and time (hour and minute) for the initial stages which led to the chain of events which led to this case? I.e. when did you think it started?
At some point a child disappeared. No-one knows how or why, so how can anyone work out what led up to it?
-
It is a good question which deserves an intelligent response.
It is self-evident Brietta.
So, just to remind you, everything was set in motion when the Mccann's left their children in unlocked accomodation, with infrequent , short checks, for several nights in a row.
Inexcusable behaviour, but you of course will never admit that, and then the question is why you never admit the McCann's did wrong.
-
So, just to remind you, everything was set in motion when the Mccann's left their children in unlocked accomodation, with infrequent , short checks, for several nights in a row.
Inexcusable behaviour, but you of course will never admit that, and then the question is why you never admit the McCann's did wrong.
Was it a stupid and unbelievably regrettable thing they both did, yes it was. Are they going to be haunted by their actions for the rest of their lives, I would suspect they both will. If they could, with hindsight turn back the clock I strongly suspect they would.
However, as far as I can determine, their actions were without malice or intent to harm their children. It's a tragic mistake and they paid the heaviest price any parent could pay. To compound this they can only live in hope that one day she will be found, until then for all of them, there will be no closure and that I think has to be the hardest thing any parent, regardless of their actions has to live with.
That poor choice and judgement was ten years ago and it happened, whether or not you want to lay the initial blame at her parents feet has somewhat paled to insignificance now because it has no bearing on the investigation and finding her.
If we for a moment suppose that Madeleine had been identified and was stolen to order, a committed abductor with necessary support would have grabbed her at some other point I think it's fair to postulate. We won't ever know until she is found.
When it comes to this topic I just don't see the validity of pointing fingers at her parents for the position they now find themselves in.
-
Was it a stupid and unbelievably regrettable thing they both did, yes it was. Are they going to be haunted by their actions for the rest of their lives, I would suspect they both will. If they could, with hindsight turn back the clock I strongly suspect they would.
However, as far as I can determine, their actions were without malice or intent to harm their children. It's a tragic mistake and they paid the heaviest price any parent could pay. To compound this they can only live in hope that one day she will be found, until then for all of them, there will be no closure and that I think has to be the hardest thing any parent, regardless of their actions has to live with.
That poor choice and judgement was ten years ago and it happened, whether or not you want to lay the initial blame at her parents feet has somewhat paled to insignificance now because it has no bearing on the investigation and finding her.
If we for a moment suppose that Madeleine had been identified and was stolen to order, a committed abductor with necessary support would have grabbed her at some other point I think it's fair to postulate. We won't ever know until she is found.
When it comes to this topic I just don't see the validity of pointing fingers at her parents for the position they now find themselves in.
It was elementary commonsense, not to do what they did.
Likewise, the statement that they felt self in the resort falls down, with one simple aspect of their behaviour, locking the apartment during the daytime.
As to 'abduction'...................................
-
It is self-evident Brietta.
So, just to remind you, everything was set in motion when the Mccann's left their children in unlocked accomodation, with infrequent , short checks, for several nights in a row.
Inexcusable behaviour, but you of course will never admit that, and then the question is why you never admit the McCann's did wrong.
You know this ... how?
-
You know this ... how?
Are you for real ???
-
Are you for real ???
You said ...
"So, just to remind you, everything was set in motion when the Mccann's left their children in unlocked accomodation, with infrequent , short checks, for several nights in a row."
I asked how you know this ... a perfectly reasonable question which should be deserving of a reasonable answer.
My question still stands.
-
Was it a stupid and unbelievably regrettable thing they both did, yes it was. Are they going to be haunted by their actions for the rest of their lives, I would suspect they both will. If they could, with hindsight turn back the clock I strongly suspect they would.
However, as far as I can determine, their actions were without malice or intent to harm their children. It's a tragic mistake and they paid the heaviest price any parent could pay. To compound this they can only live in hope that one day she will be found, until then for all of them, there will be no closure and that I think has to be the hardest thing any parent, regardless of their actions has to live with.
That poor choice and judgement was ten years ago and it happened, whether or not you want to lay the initial blame at her parents feet has somewhat paled to insignificance now because it has no bearing on the investigation and finding her.
If we for a moment suppose that Madeleine had been identified and was stolen to order, a committed abductor with necessary support would have grabbed her at some other point I think it's fair to postulate. We won't ever know until she is found.
When it comes to this topic I just don't see the validity of pointing fingers at her parents for the position they now find themselves in.
The problem is their 'mistake' was so stupid it's hard for some to believe that anyone could really be so stupid. None of the group look or sound like intellectual giants, but even their friends locked their doors.
-
You said ...
"So, just to remind you, everything was set in motion when the Mccann's left their children in unlocked accomodation, with infrequent , short checks, for several nights in a row."
I asked how you know this ... a perfectly reasonable question which should be deserving of a reasonable answer.
My question still stands.
This question has been discussed and answered on numerous occasions.
The McCann's endangered their children by leaving them alone, and it was totally unnecessary.
During one of these periods Madeleine 'disappeared'.
Now, let's hear you answer some of my questions.
1. Why have you never criticized the Mccann's behaviour ?
By the way, any refusal to answer that question will lead to an almost inevitable conclusion for other people, and since you have refused to answer the same one, when I have asked you before, I have already made mine some time ago.
-
It was elementary commonsense, not to do what they did.
Likewise, the statement that they felt self in the resort falls down, with one simple aspect of their behaviour, locking the apartment during the daytime.
As to 'abduction'...................................
Yes commons sense does tend to err on the side of security and caution however the difference between locking the doors in the daytime and leaving them unlocked in the evening are two different things to me.
Locking the doors during the daytime was a common sense measure to protect their possessions. Leaving the door unlocked in the evening was done to protect their children. And what I mean by that is in case the children, most likely Madeleine, had an urgent need to leave the apartment.
I recall vaguely Mr or Mrs McCann saying that they dropped their guard significantly because they felt the resort was safe. Whereas I can understand this particular mind set, it is not something I would choose to do. I am more than aware that the Portuguese people are very friendly and extremely family orientated but like in any society, there will always be those people who seek to exploit such things.
With regards to abduction. I keep a very open mind on this and feel this scenario is most likely because Scotland Yard are taking their investigation in this direction. I have read Mr Amaral's book so I am familiar with the tragic fatal accident and ensuing cover up he puts forward. My only concern with Mr Amaral's findings and conclusions is that if such an incident had taken place, I would expect there to be quite significant evidence indicating it. As such I am not aware of such convincing evidence, just as there is no convincing evidence that an abductor took Madeleine from the apartment.
Her disappearance remains a complete mystery
-
Yes commons sense does tend to err on the side of security and caution however the difference between locking the doors in the daytime and leaving them unlocked in the evening are two different things to me.
Locking the doors during the daytime was a common sense measure to protect their possessions. Leaving the door unlocked in the evening was done to protect their children. And what I mean by that is in case the children, most likely Madeleine, had an urgent need to leave the apartment.
I recall vaguely Mr or Mrs McCann saying that they dropped their guard significantly because they felt the resort was safe. Whereas I can understand this particular mind set, it is not something I would choose to do. I am more than aware that the Portuguese people are very friendly and extremely family orientated but like in any society, there will always be those people who seek to exploit such things.
With regards to abduction. I keep a very open mind on this and feel this scenario is most likely because Scotland Yard are taking their investigation in this direction. I have read Mr Amaral's book so I am familiar with the tragic fatal accident and ensuing cover up he puts forward. My only concern with Mr Amaral's findings and conclusions is that if such an incident had taken place, I would expect there to be quite significant evidence indicating it. As such I am not aware of such convincing evidence, just as there is no convincing evidence that an abductor took Madeleine from the apartment.
Her disappearance remains a complete mystery
Anyone suggesting that a door is left unlocked to allow a small child to get out of an apartment onto a dangerous balcony is forgetting that the resort warned guests not to allow children to use the balcony without supervision. Not that any parent with any sense would.
-
Yes commons sense does tend to err on the side of security and caution however the difference between locking the doors in the daytime and leaving them unlocked in the evening are two different things to me.
Locking the doors during the daytime was a common sense measure to protect their possessions. Leaving the door unlocked in the evening was done to protect their children. And what I mean by that is in case the children, most likely Madeleine, had an urgent need to leave the apartment.
I recall vaguely Mr or Mrs McCann saying that they dropped their guard significantly because they felt the resort was safe. Whereas I can understand this particular mind set, it is not something I would choose to do. I am more than aware that the Portuguese people are very friendly and extremely family orientated but like in any society, there will always be those people who seek to exploit such things.
With regards to abduction. I keep a very open mind on this and feel this scenario is most likely because Scotland Yard are taking their investigation in this direction. I have read Mr Amaral's book so I am familiar with the tragic fatal accident and ensuing cover up he puts forward. My only concern with Mr Amaral's findings and conclusions is that if such an incident had taken place, I would expect there to be quite significant evidence indicating it. As such I am not aware of such convincing evidence, just as there is no convincing evidence that an abductor took Madeleine from the apartment.
Her disappearance remains a complete mystery
Logic would dictate, not leaving children in a foreign country, in a language they did not know.
' Locking the doors during the daytime was a common sense measure to protect their possessions. Leaving the door unlocked in the evening was done to protect their children. And what I mean by that is in case the children, most likely Madeleine, had an urgent need to leave the apartment. '
Haven't we been told that the McCann's do not accept the theory pronounced by Mark Williams-Thomas last week, so that blows that one on the head. Also, are we seriously expected to believe that three children, all under three years old, could be expected to deal with an emergency. Your inference that leaving the apartment unlocked was 'to protect the children' on any basis , is highly illogical.
In fact, the McCann's behaviour per se, was rampantly illogical, and was a mark of their arrogance, as was the other members of the group in leaving their children.
As regards Amaral's theory, there are also other explanations as to why potential residue from a body would not have been found.
-
The problem is their 'mistake' was so stupid it's hard for some to believe that anyone could really be so stupid. None of the group look or sound like intellectual giants, but even their friends locked their doors.
Yes I agree, a very stupid mistake to make given the seriousness of the consequences, but nevertheless, a mistake. There is nothing that I am aware of that indicates or even hints towards this poor lack of wisdom was done with any malice or intent.
-
Logic would dictate, not leaving children in a foreign country, in a language they did not know.
Fully agree with you however logic on this night appears to have sat this one out or else we wouldn't be in the position we are now with the investigation.
' Locking the doors during the daytime was a common sense measure to protect their possessions. Leaving the door unlocked in the evening was done to protect their children. And what I mean by that is in case the children, most likely Madeleine, had an urgent need to leave the apartment. '
Haven't we been told that the McCann's do not accept the theory pronounced by Mark Williams-Thomas last week, so that blows that one on the head. Also, are we seriously expected to believe that three children, all under three years old, could be expected to deal with an emergency. Your inference that leaving the apartment unlocked was 'to protect the children' on any basis , is highly illogical.
This is why I mentioned Madeleine specifically, the twins are too young, I agree. Madeleine, despite being so young had a chance to be able to get out and raise an alarm in the event of something urgent. It is by no means an ideal situation, I grant you, however given who was in the apartment, Madeleine was the only one who could possibly do this.
In fact, the McCann's behaviour per se, was rampantly illogical, and was a mark of their arrogance, as was the other members of the group in leaving their children.
They made some very poor decisions that have cost them dearly, I don't feel the need to go as far to classify them as being "rampant illogical".
As regards Amaral's theory, there are also other explanations as to why potential residue from a body would not have been found.
Would you mind expanding on this because I was under the impression that there were no cleaning products efficient enough to remove such evidence, nor did anyone have the time to conduct the deep clean necessary so I would be very interested to see what your thoughts are on this.
-
Yes I agree, a very stupid mistake to make given the seriousness of the consequences, but nevertheless, a mistake. There is nothing that I am aware of that indicates or even hints towards this poor lack of wisdom was done with any malice or intent.
Yes, mistakes are often only obvious in hindsight. I prefer to see what they said they did as a massive error of judgement. That brings in the notion of foresight, something that all parents need to possess and to use.
Did they think the child was capable of opening the childgate? Did they think she was capable of negotiating those steps? Did they tell her where they would be? Unless the answer to all those questions is 'yes' then leaving the door open for her makes no sense.
-
...
Locking the doors during the daytime was a common sense measure to protect their possessions. Leaving the door unlocked in the evening was done to protect their children. And what I mean by that is in case the children, most likely Madeleine, had an urgent need to leave the apartment.
...
(From memory) In the programme made in 2009 when Gerry returned to Luz, his explanation was that the patio doors were used (hence unlocked) because of a worry that use of the front door might waken the children. With no mention of Madeleine being able to get out.
-
(From memory) In the programme made in 2009 when Gerry returned to Luz, his explanation was that the patio doors were used (hence unlocked) because of a worry that use of the front door might waken the children. With no mention of Madeleine being able to get out.
Perhaps by that time the danger to them of 'woke and wandered' had been realised and was thus airbrushed.
From what I recall, this program was very much a McCann production.
-
Anyone suggesting that a door is left unlocked to allow a small child to get out of an apartment onto a dangerous balcony is forgetting that the resort warned guests not to allow children to use the balcony without supervision. Not that any parent with any sense would.
To be fair, I suspect the McCanns never even considered such a horrendous thing would happen, let alone Madeleine having the need for whatever reason to leave the apartment unaccompanied or seen doing so. So when it came to common sense health and safety guidelines, well they weren't observed.
I have seen many parents question the way the McCanns behaved, highlighting their choices and then comparing them to their own choices for raising their children. Parents do raise their children differently, and there is no definitive rule book for doing so.
-
A mystery is prime suspect Efits hidden for many years. A mystery is why there were more regular checks on the night she disappeared. A mystery is why the parents didn't call the police straight away knowing she had been abducted. A mystery is deleted mobile log history within 24 hours. A mystery is paedo gangs being blamed within a few hours of her disappearance by a witness. A mystery is a key turned into not a key. A mystery is a timeline that doesn't add up. A mystery is parents not answering ALL questions to move the investigation forward. A mystery is CC being washed. A mystery is a car boot that was always seen open. A mystery is the Smiths saw long sleeves. A mystery is a twin reported to say Maddy's jammies. A mystery is getting keys to the local church. A mystery is certain statements not seen by Amaral. A mystery is Pamela Fenn hearing crying for 75 minutes when the parents claim they were in the apartment. A mystery is why Madeleine said why weren't you there when WE cried last night and they went out again and left them alone. A mystery is how Tannnerman kept changing and morphed into George Harrison. A mystery is how Jane Tanner passed two men without being seen. A mystery is fingerprints found on the window. A mystery is the cleaner seeing a cot in the parents bedroom. A mystery is many dog alerts. A mystery is parents not being present the first time Madeleine sailed (she cried). A mystery is why they were the only ones missing from the group at the beach. A mystery is a visit that doesn't add up. A mystery is a moving ajar door. A mystery is Kate sleeping in a spare bed for the first time. A mystery is the first visual check of the week on Madeleine (last time seen) in an unsecured apartment.
A mystery? No just questions that have answers.
-
Fully agree with you however logic on this night appears to have sat this one out or else we wouldn't be in the position we are now with the investigation.
This is why I mentioned Madeleine specifically, the twins are too young, I agree. Madeleine, despite being so young had a chance to be able to get out and raise an alarm in the event of something urgent. It is by no means an ideal situation, I grant you, however given who was in the apartment, Madeleine was the only one who could possibly do this.
They made some very poor decisions that have cost them dearly, I don't feel the need to go as far to classify them as being "rampant illogical".
Would you mind expanding on this because I was under the impression that there were no cleaning products efficient enough to remove such evidence, nor did anyone have the time to conduct the deep clean necessary so I would be very interested to see what your thoughts are on this.
I certainly don't agree that a child just under the age of 4 could wake up and handle an emergency , rationally and logically. Adults often don't.
As to 'cleaning products', that was not part of my rationale, and after all, I would not wish to type something on an open forum which might be construed as libel. The lack of traces of a body, does not mean compounds resulting from decomposition, could not be detected.
-
A mystery is prime suspect Efits hidden for many years. A mystery is why there were more regular checks on the night she disappeared. A mystery is why the parents didn't call the police straight away knowing she had been abducted. A mystery is deleted mobile log history within 24 hours. A mystery is paedo gangs being blamed within a few hours of her disappearance by a witness. A mystery is a key turned into not a key. A mystery is a timeline that doesn't add up. A mystery is parents not answering ALL questions to move the investigation forward. A mystery is CC being washed. A mystery is a car boot that was always seen open. A mystery is the Smiths saw long sleeves. A mystery is a twin reported to say Maddy's jammies. A mystery is getting keys to the local church. A mystery is certain statements not seen by Amaral. A mystery is Pamela Fenn hearing crying for 75 minutes when the parents claim they were in the apartment. A mystery is why Madeleine said why weren't you there when WE cried last night and they went out again and left them alone. A mystery is how Tannnerman kept changing and morphed into George Harrison. A mystery is how Jane Tanner passed two men without being seen. A mystery is fingerprints found on the window. A mystery is the cleaner seeing a cot in the parents bedroom. A mystery is many dog alerts. A mystery is parents not being present at first time Madeleine sailed (she cried). A mystery is why they were the only ones missing from the group at the beach. A mystery is a visit that doesn't add up. A mystery is a moving ajar door. A mystery is Kate sleeping in a spare bed for the first time. A mystery is the first visual check of the week on Madeleine (last time seen) in an unsecured apartment.
A mystery? No just questions that have answers.
There is no 'mystery' other than that created by the false premise inherent in the question.
Nothing was 'withheld' for any length of time at all.
Rather, two efits, produced at, or around, the time of the shelving of the first enquiry required a second enquiry, and a fresh, full-scale police investigation to justify their release, which is precisely what happened, when Scotland Yard, themselves already in possession of the efits before they released them, chose the moment of the Crimewatch programme to do so.
All other speculation is idle (at most charitable); malicious (at probably more accurate) tittle-tattle.
-
To be fair, I suspect the McCanns never even considered such a horrendous thing would happen, let alone Madeleine having the need for whatever reason to leave the apartment unaccompanied or seen doing so. So when it came to common sense health and safety guidelines, well they weren't observed.
I have seen many parents question the way the McCanns behaved, highlighting their choices and then comparing them to their own choices for raising their children. Parents do raise their children differently, and there is no definitive rule book for doing so.
What horrendous thing? If they could foresee no reason for Madeleine to leave the apartment why did Kate say that was the reason for the open door?
Parents all have their own methods, but very few would consider it sensible or acceptable to expect a child of Madeleine's age to be able make her way to her parents if she felt the need. Most parents would have stopped her from attempting that journey in daylight.
I'm surprised they walked her to and from the mini-club each day. A child as mature as Kate suggested Madeleine was could have gone by herself, surely?
-
This question has been discussed and answered on numerous occasions.
The McCann's endangered their children by leaving them alone, and it was totally unnecessary.
During one of these periods Madeleine 'disappeared'.
Now, let's hear you answer some of my questions.
1. Why have you never criticized the Mccann's behaviour ?
By the way, any refusal to answer that question will lead to an almost inevitable conclusion for other people, and since you have refused to answer the same one, when I have asked you before, I have already made mine some time ago.
It is against my moral compass to involve myself in unnecessary criticism of a couple who are all too aware of exactly what the loss of their daughter means for them, and every other member of her family, every single day of their lives until such time as they discover what happened to her.
As far as Madeleine's disappearance is concerned you know exactly what everyone else does and that is nothing.
You may have an opinion ... and that is all it is ... do not presume to state your opinion as fact.
-
It is against my moral compass to involve myself in unnecessary criticism of a couple who are all too aware of exactly what the loss of their daughter means for them, and every other member of her family, every single day of their lives until such time as they discover what happened to her.
As far as Madeleine's disappearance is concerned you know exactly what everyone else does and that is nothing.
You may have an opinion ... and that is all it is ... do not presume to state your opinion as fact.
Moral compass ?
How pretentious.
Their actions and lack of care of their children led to this case, and no matter how Madeleine 'disappeared', they and only , bear responsibility for that.
Your answer is also hypocritical, as you have frequently criticized Amaral. A man you would never have heard of, but for the Mccann's actions.
As to, stating possibilities as facts, how many times have you referred to 'abduction' as an unstated fact ?
-
I certainly don't agree that a child just under the age of 4 could wake up and handle an emergency , rationally and logically. Adults often don't.
Neither do I, a three year old is woefully inappropriate to handle any urgent matter, but as I said, given who was in the apartment only Madeleine had the ability to do so. The choice of putting her in that position was down to her parents which we can both agree was not the best choice on their part. However it was a choice that proved catastrophic for them but was a mistake.
As to 'cleaning products', that was not part of my rationale, and after all, I would not wish to type something on an open forum which might be construed as libel. The lack of traces of a body, does not mean compounds resulting from decomposition, could not be detected.
Yes in total agreement however forensically speaking there was nothing to indicate that this was the case. Had sufficient forensic surfaced then I would believe that this case would not be described as a missing child
-
Moral compass ?
How pretentious.
Their actions and lack of care of their children led to this case, and no matter how M
When stating your opinion in your posts including the last sentence of the above please include the words ... "in my opinion" ... unless you are making a statement of fact to which you are able to provide a cite. Thank you.
-
When stating your opinion in your posts including the last sentence of the above please include the words ... "in my opinion" ... unless you are making a statement of fact to which you are able to provide a cite. Thank you.
That also empirically applies to you as well.
So, when stating abduction, add the phrase, 'in my opinion'.
Merci.
-
It is against my moral compass to involve myself in unnecessary criticism of a couple who are all too aware of exactly what the loss of their daughter means for them, and every other member of her family, every single day of their lives until such time as they discover what happened to her.
As far as Madeleine's disappearance is concerned you know exactly what everyone else does and that is nothing.
You may have an opinion ... and that is all it is ... do not presume to state your opinion as fact.
Anyone can make a mistake. Sometimes mistakes cause suffering. Very often we can empathise because the mistake is one that anyone could have made. In those cases I agree, criticism doesn't help; although I wouldn't go so far as to bring morality into the equation.
The problem with the Madeleine McCann case is that many people cannot empathise with the parent's actions because they can't make sense of them. They can't understand the logic of their decision-making process. Why lock up in the daytime but not at night? To allow a small child to negotiate an exit via a balcony where she should always have been supervised? To allow her to find her parents at night in a strange place in the dark?
That, in my opinion, isn't a mistake, it's sheer lunacy.
-
What horrendous thing?
That their daughter disappeared without trace. I would think they consider this to be an horrendous moment in their lives.
If they could foresee no reason for Madeleine to leave the apartment why did Kate say that was the reason for the open door?
I can only assume that for some reason they did not think having the children effectively sealed in the apartment was a good idea.
Parents all have their own methods, but very few would consider it sensible or acceptable to expect a child of Madeleine's age to be able make her way to her parents if she felt the need. Most parents would have stopped her from attempting that journey in daylight.
And would be one of those parents who would have stopped any child of Madeleine's age making that trip unaccompanied.
I'm surprised they walked her to and from the mini-club each day. A child as mature as Kate suggested Madeleine was could have gone by herself, surely?
The fact that they did is the example of parental care for a child that all parents carry out. And I don't think any parent, Kate included, would ever with good conscience refer to a three year old as being mature.
-
Anyone can make a mistake. Sometimes mistakes cause suffering. Very often we can empathise because the mistake is one that anyone could have made. In those cases I agree, criticism doesn't help; although I wouldn't go so far as to bring morality into the equation.
The problem with the Madeleine McCann case is that many people cannot empathise with the parent's actions because they can't make sense of them. They can't understand the logic of their decision-making process. Why lock up in the daytime but not at night? To allow a small child to negotiate an exit via a balcony where she should always have been supervised? To allow her to find her parents at night in a strange place in the dark?
That, in my opinion, isn't a mistake, it's sheer lunacy.
How closely do you 'supervise' your children while they are in bed asleep?
-
Anyone can make a mistake. Sometimes mistakes cause suffering. Very often we can empathise because the mistake is one that anyone could have made. In those cases I agree, criticism doesn't help; although I wouldn't go so far as to bring morality into the equation.
The problem with the Madeleine McCann case is that many people cannot empathise with the parent's actions because they can't make sense of them. They can't understand the logic of their decision-making process. Why lock up in the daytime but not at night? To allow a small child to negotiate an exit via a balcony where she should always have been supervised? To allow her to find her parents at night in a strange place in the dark?
That, in my opinion, isn't a mistake, it's sheer lunacy.
In my opinion it indeed is a question of morality when there are those who have felt themselves driven to condemn a bereaved family in the most calculatedly vicious terms ... and to keep doing so without let or hindrance for approaching ten years.
It conduct which is morally indefensible as well as indefensible in apportioning blame to individuals who are innocent in the eyes of the law.
-
That their daughter disappeared without trace. I would think they consider this to be an horrendous moment in their lives.
I can only assume that for some reason they did not think having the children effectively sealed in the apartment was a good idea.
And would be one of those parents who would have stopped any child of Madeleine's age making that trip unaccompanied.
The fact that they did is the example of parental care for a child that all parents carry out. And I don't think any parent, Kate included, would ever with good conscience refer to a three year old as being mature.
Kate seems to have thought Madeleine could leave the apartment and find them. That suggests a level of maturity exceeding that of an average three year old. The parental care demonstrated during the day was absent at night, unfortunately for Madeleine.
-
The problem is their 'mistake' was so stupid it's hard for some to believe that anyone could really be so stupid. None of the group look or sound like intellectual giants, but even their friends locked their doors.
10 years on and you still can't get over it? Yes, even intellectual giants can be stupid, did you not know that?
-
Perhaps by that time the danger to them of 'woke and wandered' had been realised and was thus airbrushed.
From what I recall, this program was very much a McCann production.
"Woke and wandered" is dangerous to the McCanns how exactly?
-
Anyone can make a mistake. Sometimes mistakes cause suffering. Very often we can empathise because the mistake is one that anyone could have made. In those cases I agree, criticism doesn't help; although I wouldn't go so far as to bring morality into the equation.
The problem with the Madeleine McCann case is that many people cannot empathise with the parent's actions because they can't make sense of them. They can't understand the logic of their decision-making process. Why lock up in the daytime but not at night? To allow a small child to negotiate an exit via a balcony where she should always have been supervised? To allow her to find her parents at night in a strange place in the dark?
That, in my opinion, isn't a mistake, it's sheer lunacy.
I think you are over-egging the pudding somewhat. It wasn't a strange place, it was a place they had stayed for several days, a home from home if you like. They didn't just plonk Madeleine in a random dark room in the middle of nowhere and leave her. She knew where she was a propos the Tapas restaurant for example. But I don't recall that the McCanns ever said they expected Madeleine to physically make her own way to their table. If she had needed them she could have called to them from the balcony and been heard. But if you prefer to view the McCanns as lunatics then that's your prerogative.
-
In my opinion it indeed is a question of morality when there are those who have felt themselves driven to condemn a bereaved family in the most calculatedly vicious terms ... and to keep doing so without let or hindrance for approaching ten years.
It conduct which is morally indefensible as well as indefensible in apportioning blame to individuals who are innocent in the eyes of the law.
Does questioning the logic of someone's documented actions amount to being 'driven to condemn a bereaved family in the most calculatedly vicious terms'? I think not.
-
Does questioning the logic of someone's documented actions amount to being 'driven to condemn a bereaved family in the most calculatedly vicious terms'? I think not.
exactly no one likes censorship supporters would love us to stop talking about this wouldnt they
-
Once upon a bittybob.................. 8**8:/:
So you failed miserably.
-
I think you are over-egging the pudding somewhat. It wasn't a strange place, it was a place they had stayed for several days, a home from home if you like. They didn't just plonk Madeleine in a random dark room in the middle of nowhere and leave her. She knew where she was a propos the Tapas restaurant for example. But I don't recall that the McCanns ever said they expected Madeleine to physically make her own way to their table. If she had needed them she could have called to them from the balcony and been heard. But if you prefer to view the McCanns as lunatics then that's your prerogative.
You appear to be saying the McCanns thought Madeleine could call to them, when Kate left the twins rather than calling to Gerry. Is that correct?
-
It is self-evident Brietta.
So, just to remind you, everything was set in motion when the Mccann's left their children in unlocked accomodation, with infrequent , short checks, for several nights in a row.
Inexcusable behaviour, but you of course will never admit that, and then the question is why you never admit the McCann's did wrong.
OK so the wheels of motion started from the time they arrived in Portugal or something like that, when the T9 started thinking about always going to the Tapas Restaurant rather than the Millennium.
-
It was elementary commonsense, not to do what they did.
Likewise, the statement that they felt self in the resort falls down, with one simple aspect of their behaviour, locking the apartment during the daytime.
As to 'abduction'...................................
Why didn't their friends pull them up on it then if the problem started so early.
-
OK so the wheels of motion started from the time they arrived in Portugal or something like that, when the T9 started thinking about always going to the Tapas Restaurant rather than the Millennium.
That gives you from when the T9 decided upon a block booking to when Madeleine disappeared.
-
Anyone suggesting that a door is left unlocked to allow a small child to get out of an apartment onto a dangerous balcony is forgetting that the resort warned guests not to allow children to use the balcony without supervision. Not that any parent with any sense would.
Did that warning apply to the ground floor balconies as well?
-
That gives you from when the T9 decided upon a block booking to when Madeleine disappeared.
Thanks - Quite a long period of time then.
Was this the 4th night of their group listening service? Mon Tues Wed and the fateful Thursday.
-
So you failed miserably.
No bob, try harder.
Perhaps one day you will do better.
-
In my opinion it indeed is a question of morality when there are those who have felt themselves driven to condemn a bereaved family in the most calculatedly vicious terms ... and to keep doing so without let or hindrance for approaching ten years.
It conduct which is morally indefensible as well as indefensible in apportioning blame to individuals who are innocent in the eyes of the law.
A matter of perception.
You defend the indefensible.
-
A matter of perception.
You defend the indefensible.
And you are the knight in shining armour who is going to correct all wrongs.
-
If anyone wants to post information that relates to the twins in the current time please get prior approval from the forum owner.
Information that has been published in a 'bona-fide' media outlet is fine. Social media posts are going to get flushed on sight, unless it is made clear John has approved them.
The PM system exists for a reason.
-
"Woke and wandered" is dangerous to the McCanns how exactly?
Twofold
If she had woke & wandered then they are responsible for allowing that to happen. No one else to blame.
Secondly if abduction from the apartment is exclude by W&W then they have to explain the open window, the raised shutter and the ever changing door angle, on all of which they have put such emphasis
Therefore the woke & wandered theory has to be played down and denied. All IMO, of course
-
Twofold
If she had woke & wandered then they are responsible for allowing that to happen. No one else to blame.
There is no putting this in any favourable light, unfortunately it is true. A poor decision was made that with hindsight contributed to Madeleine disappearing. Although I will say apportioning blame to either of Madeleine's parents does not forward any investigation and I also strongly suspect they accept their responsibility and fundamentally regret it. Always will.
Secondly if abduction from the apartment is exclude by W&W then they have to explain the open window, the raised shutter and the ever changing door angle, on all of which they have put such emphasis
Therefore the woke & wandered theory has to be played down and denied. All IMO, of course
Yes the statements regarding windows and shutters, bedroom and interior doors seem to be confused, however it has to be pointed out that these alone, or taken into context of the crime scene are not in anyway conducive to explaining what took place. I am more inclined to believe that controversy surrounding these was down to confused statements and jaded recollections.
With your concluding comment, I think that's an astute observation. Personally there is evidence to indicate that her parents were controlling the narrative because, let's assume for a moment, that they had nothing to do with this, they would want to promote the theory they believe in or is being investigated. Anytime the focus returns to them and they know it is a waste of time will be deeply frustrating for them.
-
One thing they weren't confused about was the position of the bedroom door.
THURSDAY, MAY 3: Milk and biscuits for the kids. I left them with this and books and games and went to have a quick shower/wash my hair. M (Madeleine) tired' sitting on my lap' I read the story of Mog (favourite children's book).
Brush teeth. To the bedroom with the kids. M pulls away and puts her head on pillow. Kisses goodnight for M. Pulled the door to as far as possible without shutting it. Silence.
Dry hair. Put make-up on. Glass of wine. Restaurant. KM Diary
He noted that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought strange, having then put together the thought of MADELEINE having got up to go to sleep in his bedroom so as to avoid the noise produced [created] by her siblings. In this way he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and is certain of this, that the three were sleeping deeply. He left the children's bedroom returning to place the door how he had already previously described. GM 10 May statement
That he did not enter the bedroom where MBM and the twins were sleeping. He recalls that the bedroom door was half open. MO 10 May statement
-
Twofold
If she had woke & wandered then they are responsible for allowing that to happen. No one else to blame.
Secondly if abduction from the apartment is exclude by W&W then they have to explain the open window, the raised shutter and the ever changing door angle, on all of which they have put such emphasis
Therefore the woke & wandered theory has to be played down and denied. All IMO, of course
Hmm....well, in the case of Ben Needham it's gone from abduction to wandered off, without causing danger to the Needham family, so I don't really agree with your first point. If they were going to have been done for neglect it would have happened already, woke or wandered or not.
As for your second point, they wouldn't need to explain it, it would be just one of those mysteries - maybe Madeleine opened it, she certainly could have moved the door. Yes, let's settle on that explanation. No danger caused to anyone.
-
A matter of perception.
You defend the indefensible.
They are not innocent in the eyes of the law at all. They have not been charge with anything due to lack of evidence, therfore not declared innocent. I read they are still under suspicion after all this time. Also it is worth noting the crime they did commit and could have been charged with was neglect or the Portuguese equivelant. I am sure they would have been found guilty for that.
They won the PR round in the beginning by talking about abductors breaking in and stealing their daughter.
-
They are not innocent in the eyes of the law at all. They have not been charge with anything due to lack of evidence, therfore not declared innocent. I read they are still under suspicion after all this time. Also it is worth noting the crime they did commit and could have been charged with was neglect or the Portuguese equivelant. I am sure they would have been found guilty for that.
They won the PR round in the beginning by talking about abductors breaking in and stealing their daughter.
Dear oh dear, where to begin with this post? Let's start with asking "if the McCanns are not innocent in the eyes of the law then what exactly is their legal status, in the eyes of the law?"
-
PR - well could you call it that?
-
Dear oh dear, where to begin with this post? Let's start with asking "if the McCanns are not innocent in the eyes of the law then what exactly is their legal status, in the eyes of the law?"
Pending while awaiting confirmation ?
-
Pending while awaiting confirmation ?
Pending while awaiting confirmation of their guilt.
-
Pending while awaiting confirmation ?
@)(++(* "Pending" is a legal status is it? Hilarious!
-
@)(++(* "Pending" is a legal status is it? Hilarious!
As in patent pending.
-
@)(++(* "Pending" is a legal status is it? Hilarious!
That would depend upon you ae defining status.
Hilarious that you should not know
-
As in patent pending.
As in patent nonsense.
-
The law is not required to decide between guilt and innocence, it is there to judge if someone is guilty or not guilty of an offence. In the McCann case the law wasn't required to make a decision. Even if it had, 'innocence' would not have entered into the judgement. Even 'not guilty' doesn't mean 'innocent', it simply means 'the law' was unable to prove guilt.
So in reality there is no legal status of 'innocence'. There is the status of entitlement to the presumption of innocence, but that's related to a defendant's right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty.
-
The law is not required to decide between guilt and innocence, it is there to judge if someone is guilty or not guilty of an offence. In the McCann case the law wasn't required to make a decision. Even if it had, 'innocence' would not have entered into the judgement. Even 'not guilty' doesn't mean 'innocent', it simply means 'the law' was unable to prove guilt.
So in reality there is no legal status of 'innocence'. There is the status of entitlement to the presumption of innocence, but that's related to a defendant's right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty.
The McCanns have never been defendants to be found either innocent or guilty. By your own definition like all innocent people they enjoy the presumption of innocence.
-
The law is not required to decide between guilt and innocence, it is there to judge if someone is guilty or not guilty of an offence. In the McCann case the law wasn't required to make a decision. Even if it had, 'innocence' would not have entered into the judgement. Even 'not guilty' doesn't mean 'innocent', it simply means 'the law' was unable to prove guilt.
So in reality there is no legal status of 'innocence'. There is the status of entitlement to the presumption of innocence, but that's related to a defendant's right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty.
So baso the McCanns could never be cleared, even if they had been found "not guilty" in court it still wouldn't prove their innocence. In other words proving their innocence would be an actual impossibility, yet something the PT expected them to be able to do, through a reconstruction. How bizarre is that?!
-
The law is not required to decide between guilt and innocence, it is there to judge if someone is guilty or not guilty of an offence. In the McCann case the law wasn't required to make a decision. Even if it had, 'innocence' would not have entered into the judgement. Even 'not guilty' doesn't mean 'innocent', it simply means 'the law' was unable to prove guilt.
So in reality there is no legal status of 'innocence'. There is the status of entitlement to the presumption of innocence, but that's related to a defendant's right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty.
What kind of convoluted and twisted (il)logic is that?
The McCanns' arguido status was dropped because there was no evidence against them.
-
So baso the McCanns could never be cleared, even if they had been found "not guilty" in court it still wouldn't prove their innocence. In other words proving their innocence would be an actual impossibility, yet something the PT expected them to be able to do, through a reconstruction. How bizarre is that?!
The McCanns were not 'cleared' because they were never in need of being 'cleared'.
Rather, the entire basis upon which they were made 'arguido' was found flawed, so the status was dropped.
-
The McCanns were not 'cleared' because they were never in need of being 'cleared'.
Rather, the entire basis upon which they were made 'arguido' was found flawed, so the status was dropped.
I'm pleased to see you agree with the SC judges. The archiving dispatch didn't clear them, as they and their lawyer mistakenly argued.
-
The McCanns have never been defendants to be found either innocent or guilty. By your own definition like all innocent people they enjoy the presumption of innocence.
The presumption of innocence, in my understanding, is a specific legal term which applies only to those accused of a crime. Unless and until someone is accused it doesn't apply.
-
I'm pleased to see you agree with the SC judges. The archiving dispatch didn't clear them, as they and their lawyer mistakenly argued.
Read what I wrote again.
There was never any need for them to be 'cleared'.
The basis upon which their arguido status was imposed was flawed.
-
The McCanns were not 'cleared' because they were never in need of being 'cleared'.
Rather, the entire basis upon which they were made 'arguido' was found flawed, so the status was dropped.
Where do you get that concept from?
-
Read what I wrote again.
There was never any need for them to be 'cleared'.
The basis upon which their arguido status was imposed was flawed.
What a pity their lawyer didn't think of that instead of the mistaken argument she came up with.
The Prosecutors didn't share your opinion of course;
Therefore, under the light of interpretation of the elements that constituted the process at that date, there is no doubt whatsoever concerning the legitimacy and legality of their constitution as arguidos, as it is also certain that any investigation has its own dynamics and the continuous flow of elements into the files may alter the situation, as it has, and no judgment or presumption of guilt can be extracted from such a process act
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
-
Where do you get that concept from?
'Concept'?
just the only rational interpretation of available information in the files.
-
'Concept'?
just the only rational interpretation of available information in the files.
You mean something you've made up and are trying to pass off as fact. Say no more.
-
You mean something you've made up and are trying to pass off as fact. Say no more.
Not at all. The McCanns's arguido status was rushed through just before a change to Portuguese law.
McCann suspect move 'too hasty'
Kate and Gerry McCann
The McCanns are formal suspects in Madeleine's disappearance
McCann's spokesman
The decision by detectives to make Madeleine McCann's parents suspects in her disappearance was too hasty, Portugal's top policeman has said.
Kate and Gerry McCann were named as formal suspects - or "arguidos" - four months after their daughter vanished from their holiday flat in the Algarve.
Alipio Ribeiro, head of the Policia Judiciaria, said another assessment should perhaps have taken place first.
Madeleine disappeared from the resort of Praia da Luz on the night of 3 May.
In an interview with Portugal's Radio Renascenca being broadcast on Sunday, Mr Ribeiro, national director of the PJ - Portugal's equivalent to the CID - stressed he did not give his officers orders about who should be named an arguido.
But he said there was a "certain hastiness" in making the McCanns suspects.
'Act humanely'
The couple's spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, said: "Now the national director of the Policia Judiciaria apparently accepts they should not have been made arguido, it follows that there is no case for Kate and Gerry to answer.
"As I have consistently said, Kate and Gerry are entirely innocent of any involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine."
He urged Portuguese judicial authorities to "act humanely" by removing their arguido status as swiftly as possible.
"If the Portuguese police, under Mr Ribeiro, now do the only proper thing by eliminating Kate and Gerry from their inquiry, they and our own investigators can work together rapidly and effectively to find Madeleine and to bring those responsible for her abduction to justice."
Speaking from Lisbon, the BBC's Alison Roberts said: "It is not clear whether Mr Ribeiro means tactically it was wrong to make them arguidos at that point or that they should not have been made arguidos at all."
She stressed the full text of the interview has not been published yet, adding: "These comments are likely to stir up controversy, but would not carry legal weight.
Forensic tests
"Mr Ribeiro makes the point that he does not give orders to officers to declare arguido status and it would not be normal for him to step in and order them to remove it."
And she emphasised that arguido status was intended as a means of protection, giving those involved in investigations more rights than witnesses - for example over access to lawyers.
Mr Ribeiro has previously expressed caution about the case.
On 10 September - three days after Mr and Mrs McCann were named suspects - he suggested forensic tests had not been conclusive.
Mr and Mrs McCann have been marking the third birthday of their other two children, twins Sean and Amelie, with family friends at their home in Rothley, Leicestershire.
In his latest internet blog entry, Mr McCann wrote: "We hope and pray that they will never have another birthday without Madeleine here."
-
What a pity their lawyer didn't think of that instead of the mistaken argument she came up with.
The Prosecutors didn't share your opinion of course;
Therefore, under the light of interpretation of the elements that constituted the process at that date, there is no doubt whatsoever concerning the legitimacy and legality of their constitution as arguidos, as it is also certain that any investigation has its own dynamics and the continuous flow of elements into the files may alter the situation, as it has, and no judgment or presumption of guilt can be extracted from such a process act
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Therein lies proof positive of the abrogation of the McCanns legal rights ~ there was no prior proof justifying them being made suspects ~ neither was there proof to enable charges to be made. Denial of that along with other statements made by the appeal court judges have left their final judgement in what should be tatters. It will be interesting to see how Portugal deals with that situation.
-
Therein lies proof positive of the abrogation of the McCanns legal rights ~ there was no prior proof justifying them being made suspects ~ neither was there proof to enable charges to be made. Denial of that along with other statements made by the appeal court judges have left their final judgement in what should be tatters. It will be interesting to see how Portugal deals with that situation.
Perhaps I'm being particularly slow today, so please help me out.
How do you get from "there is no doubt whatsoever concerning the legitimacy and legality of their constitution as arguidos" to "there was no prior proof justifying them being made suspects"?
These appear to me to be total opposites. What have I missed?
-
Perhaps I'm being particularly slow today, so please help me out.
How do you get from "there is no doubt whatsoever concerning the legitimacy and legality of their constitution as arguidos" to "there was no prior proof justifying them being made suspects"?
These appear to me to be total opposites. What have I missed?
Quite simply ... there was neither evidence justifying them being made suspects ... nor was there evidence against them enabling any charges to be laid.
-
I though people were made aguido to give them certain legal rights.
-
Quite simply ... there was neither evidence justifying them being made suspects ... nor was there evidence against them enabling any charges to be laid.
The arguido status (of the McCanns) was also rushed through just before a change to Portuguese law that (pre the change!) meant you didn't have to justify your reasons for imposing arguido status.
If the shelved enquiry had missed that deadline, the McCanns' arguido status would certainly not have been legal (by Portuguese law).
-
Quite simply ... there was neither evidence justifying them being made suspects ... nor was there evidence against them enabling any charges to be laid.
The prosecutors said;
"there is no doubt whatsoever concerning the legitimacy and legality of their constitution as arguidos"
They didn't say;
"there was neither evidence justifying them being made suspects"
-
However, it was legal according to the rules of the time.
-
I though people were made aguido to give them certain legal rights.
Indeed ... and hasn't Kate McCann received some stick for choosing to exercise her arguido given rights.
-
So if it gives a person certain legal rights, there isn't really any thing to complain about if made an aguido.
-
The prosecutors said;
"there is no doubt whatsoever concerning the legitimacy and legality of their constitution as arguidos"
They didn't say;
"there was neither evidence justifying them being made suspects"
Wrong again:
This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.
The Prosecutors were in no doubt Madeleine was abducted and did not hold Kate or Gerry remotely responsible for that.
And before the change in Portuguese law, introduced just after Kate and Gerry were made arguidos, there was not a requirement for a reason to be offered justifying the decision; after the change, there was.
Why did that part of the Prosecutors' archiving dispatch where the prosecutors mocked Amaral for mimicking the style of a Poirot or a Sherlock Holmes never make it into the files we read on line?
-
So baso the McCanns could never be cleared, even if they had been found "not guilty" in court it still wouldn't prove their innocence. In other words proving their innocence would be an actual impossibility, yet something the PT expected them to be able to do, through a reconstruction. How bizarre is that?!
They will be found innocent if Madeleine is found alive or another confesses to the crime. So it is not impossible but difficult. Still bizarre that that onus is put onto a private individual to prove.
-
Wrong again:
The Prosecutors were in no doubt Madeleine was abducted and did not hold Kate or Gerry remotely responsible for that.
And before the change in Portuguese law, introduced just after Kate and Gerry were made arguidos, there was not a requirement for a reason to be offered justifying the decision; after the change, there was.
Why did that part of the Prosecutors' archiving dispatch where the prosecutors mocked Amaral for mimicking the style of a Poirot or a Sherlock Holmes never make it into the files we read on line?
You seem to be having difficulty comprehending what is written, most of your points are about the abandonment issue. It doesn't mention abduction.
The Sherlock Holmes quote was about the complexity of the case not mocking the police.
-
I'm pleased to see you agree with the SC judges. The archiving dispatch didn't clear them, as they and their lawyer mistakenly argued.
But do you agree with the expression: "The McCanns were not 'cleared' because they were never in need of being 'cleared', rather, the entire basis upon which they were made 'arguido' was found flawed, so the status was dropped"?
-
You seem to be having difficulty comprehending what is written, most of your points are about the abandonment issue. It doesn't mention abduction.
The Sherlock Holmes quote was about the complexity of the case not mocking the police.
You need new reading-glasses:
The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.
(Prosecutors, archiving dispatch)
And the prosecutors did, indeed, mock Amaral for mimicking the style of a Poirot or a Holmes.
Repent at your leisure
-
The prosecutors said;
"there is no doubt whatsoever concerning the legitimacy and legality of their constitution as arguidos"
They didn't say;
"there was neither evidence justifying them being made suspects"
The forum has doubt about the legitimacy and legality of their constitution as arguidos.
-
The forum has doubt about the legitimacy and legality of their constitution as arguidos.
Come come now. One or two members, not the forum in general.
The imposition of aguido status was legal within the rules of the time and was for the legal protection of the individual,
-
You need new reading-glasses:
(Prosecutors, archiving dispatch)
And the prosecutors did, indeed, mock Amaral for mimicking the style of a Poirot or a Holmes.
Repent at your leisure
Your post didn't provide any cites to abduction and the one you just did talked about the possibility of abduction in their decision processes.
They did not mock Amaral, they just pointed out that not all cases can be solved in a fictional detective manner.
-
Come come now. One or two members, not the forum in general.
The imposition of aguido status was legal within the rules of the time and was for the legal protection of the individual,
Making them 'suspects' may have been legal by a margin of eight or nine days. It was undoubtedly a personal disaster for the McCanns ... and may have had disastrous consequences for Madeleine's case.
Madeleine may well have been collateral damage in what appears to be recognised as a war of attrition against her parents.
Alipio Ribeiro, the Policia Judiciaria's national director, has said he believes the decision to make the McCanns "arguidos" last September was taken too quickly and without thorough enough assessment.
Ribeiro tells Portugal's Catholic Church-owned Radio Renascenca: "I think there perhaps should have been another assessment before the McCanns were made official suspects. I don't have any doubt about that ... there was a certain hastiness."
The admission is the first by the Policia Judiciaria that the case of the missing four-year-old has been mishandled and gives a substantial boost to the McCanns' hope that those investigating Madeleine's disappearance have now moved away from the theory that they accidentally killed her.
It also appears to back up criticisms voiced by the McCanns' lawyer in Portugal, Carlos Pinto de Abreu, who suggested in December that police had waged a smear campaign against the couple by rushing to make them suspects on September 8 – just days before a new law would have made it impossible without firm evidence.
Mr Pinto de Abreu said: "Before September 15 last year you could be made an arguido without any suspicions or evidence against you.
"Now, to constitute someone as an arguido, it is necessary to have evidence in the file. That's why the national public prosecutor said that if this inquiry was launched now, maybe they would not have been made arguidos."
Asked whether he thought police acted deliberately as they knew the new law was coming in, he added: "I don't know if that's true, but yes, it's possible."
He added: "Many people who may have vital information have possibly not come forward as they wrongly suspected the McCanns."
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/police-chief-we-were-too-quick-to-make-gerry-and-kate-arguidos-6669654.html
-
Come come now. One or two members, not the forum in general.
The imposition of aguido status was legal within the rules of the time and was for the legal protection of the individual,
I've heard some BS but that takes the cake.
-
I've heard some BS but that takes the cake.
No its absolutely true - check it out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguido
-
Your post didn't provide any cites to abduction and the one you just did talked about the possibility of abduction in their decision processes.
They did not mock Amaral, they just pointed out that not all cases can be solved in a fictional detective manner.
Here is the part of the prosecutors' archiving process that never made into the files we read on line where the Prosecutors mocked Amaral:
"This is not, unfortunately, a police story, a crime fit for the investigative mind of a Sherlock Holmes or a Hercule Poirot, guided by the illusion that the forces of law and justice always restore order."
"No element of proof whatsoever was found which allows us to form any lucid, sensible, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances (of Madeleine's disappearance).
"Including, and most dramatically, establishing whether she is alive or dead, which seems more probable."
Mr Magalhaes defended the McCanns' decision to leave their children alone in the apartment on the night Madeleine vanished.[/u]
The word illusion emphatically and unreservedly mocks Amaral.
-
No its absolutely true - check it out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguido
OK "The rights of an arguido[edit]
If a person becomes an arguido, they automatically gain certain rights that a witness or suspect would not have.[7] An arguido has the right to be accompanied by a lawyer when questioned.[5] The investigating police may ask the arguido more direct accusatory questions (the answers to which would not be admissible in court if possibly self-incriminatory and asked of a non-arguido) but the arguido must be presented with whatever evidence is held against them,[7] and unlike a witness has the right to remain silent,[8] not to answer any question that may incriminate the person, and does not face legal action for lying.[9]
Witnesses in criminal investigations are legally bound to co-operate with the police and do not have the right to silence and face legal actions if they lie.[7][9] Because of the legal advantages, some individuals apply for arguido status to be given to themselves, e.g. when it would appear that the police suspect them but are trying to use their witness status to extract as much information as possible.[7]
A person who has arguido status has not been formally accused of a crime, arrested or charged,[10] and not all arguidos are subsequently charged.[1] The police may ask a court to restrict an arguido's movement and oblige them to not leave the country.[1] Arguidos cannot change their place of residence, without permission from a court.[10] There is no time limit on the status.[11]"
There is no time limit on the status so if the McCanns were still suspects that should have remained in place other than being removed. OK so they ended up with what evidence against the McCanns. Was it "none", so the arguido status could not be maintained?
-
If the McCanns are the PJ's chief suspects as some believe why have they not been reconstituted as arguidos or questioned again as arguidos? Any ideas?
-
No idea. I imagine that when the case was archived the aguido status ended.
I have no pretence to any knowledge of Portuguese law.
-
If the McCanns are the PJ's chief suspects as some believe why have they not been reconstituted as arguidos or questioned again as arguidos? Any ideas?
Can this be done in if they are not in Portugal?
-
Can this be done in if they are not in Portugal?
I should think so. People can be tried and found guilty in absentia so why not?
-
Indeed ... and hasn't Kate McCann received some stick for choosing to exercise her arguido given rights.
..and not choosing to answer most of the questions, in case her answers contradicted her husbands.
As if they would. 8)-)))
-
..and not choosing to answer most of the questions, in case her answers contradicted her husbands.
As if they would. 8)-)))
Is this in reference to the highly publicised 48 questions that Kate said no comment to whilst being interviewed?
-
Making them 'suspects' may have been legal by a margin of eight or nine days. It was undoubtedly a personal disaster for the McCanns ... and may have had disastrous consequences for Madeleine's case.
Madeleine may well have been collateral damage in what appears to be recognised as a war of attrition against her parents.
Alipio Ribeiro, the Policia Judiciaria's national director, has said he believes the decision to make the McCanns "arguidos" last September was taken too quickly and without thorough enough assessment.
Ribeiro tells Portugal's Catholic Church-owned Radio Renascenca: "I think there perhaps should have been another assessment before the McCanns were made official suspects. I don't have any doubt about that ... there was a certain hastiness."
The admission is the first by the Policia Judiciaria that the case of the missing four-year-old has been mishandled and gives a substantial boost to the McCanns' hope that those investigating Madeleine's disappearance have now moved away from the theory that they accidentally killed her.
It also appears to back up criticisms voiced by the McCanns' lawyer in Portugal, Carlos Pinto de Abreu, who suggested in December that police had waged a smear campaign against the couple by rushing to make them suspects on September 8 – just days before a new law would have made it impossible without firm evidence.
Mr Pinto de Abreu said: "Before September 15 last year you could be made an arguido without any suspicions or evidence against you.
"Now, to constitute someone as an arguido, it is necessary to have evidence in the file. That's why the national public prosecutor said that if this inquiry was launched now, maybe they would not have been made arguidos."
Asked whether he thought police acted deliberately as they knew the new law was coming in, he added: "I don't know if that's true, but yes, it's possible."
He added: "Many people who may have vital information have possibly not come forward as they wrongly suspected the McCanns."
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/police-chief-we-were-too-quick-to-make-gerry-and-kate-arguidos-6669654.html
The 'personal disaster' as you call it, is a result of their actions, and the lack of evidence that an abduction ever took place.
The disaster, was for the future of Madeleine.
-
I should think so. People can be tried and found guilty in absentia so why not?
Barely a year after Madeleine was abducted:
http://archive.openeurope.org.uk/Content/documents/Pdfs/tia.pdf
On 6 June 2008 EU Ministers of Justice reached an agreement on rules that would
enable judgments reached in trials in absentia to be recognised across the EU.1
-
Barely a year after Madeleine was abducted:
http://archive.openeurope.org.uk/Content/documents/Pdfs/tia.pdf
Brietta said yesterday, in case you have forgotten, don't state opinions as fact.
Abduction ferryman, is not a fact, merely an opinion.
-
The link talks of a proposal. Was it ever ratified ? Is it law?
-
Brietta said yesterday, in case you have forgotten, don't state opinions as fact.
Abduction ferryman, is not a fact, merely an opinion.
I am stating fact as fact.
Always have.
-
I am stating fact as fact.
Always have.
Abduction is not a fact ferryman.
Time to get over your dogma.
-
The link talks of a proposal. Was it ever ratified ? Is it law?
The question at issue is whether such judgements would be recognised across the EU; long recognised in individual EU countries.
-
Brietta said yesterday, in case you have forgotten, don't state opinions as fact.
Abduction ferryman, is not a fact, merely an opinion.
It seems to have been much more than an 'opinion' for the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard ... both investigative bodies have spent a considerable amount of time, resources and money investigating abduction.
-
It seems to have been much more than an 'opinion' for the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard ... both investigative bodies have spent a considerable amount of time, resources and money investigating abduction.
...and they have neither found Madeleine, or how she disappeared from the apartment.
-
...and they have neither found Madeleine, or how she disappeared from the apartment.
No internet armchair detective does ... it is possible if not probable that the real ones have a fair idea.
-
...and they have neither found Madeleine, or how she disappeared from the apartment.
Must be disappointing for the officers - so much time expended, so little to show for it.
-
No internet armchair detective does ... it is possible if not probable that the real ones have a fair idea.
In your view of course.
-
It seems to have been much more than an 'opinion' for the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard ... both investigative bodies have spent a considerable amount of time, resources and money investigating abduction.
We know roughly what the brits have spent,couldn't give a link or update as to what the Portuguese have spent in terms of time and money on the second investigation could you.
-
We know roughly what the brits have spent,couldn't give a link or update as to what the Portuguese have spent in terms of time and money on the second investigation could you.
Having primacy in the investigation one would make the assumption the contribution would match if not surpass the sum invested by the British authorities.
If it really is of interest to you perhaps the Portuguese equivalent of a freedom of information request might be in order to which I imagine the response would contain certain words along the lines of 'judicial' and 'secrecy'.
Maybe you could put your mind to equating for me what the Portuguese authorities expenditure on the present enquiry into Madeleine's disappearance has to the title of this thread?
-
No idea. I imagine that when the case was archived the arguido status ended.
I have no pretence to any knowledge of Portuguese law.
They would have to do those two in the right order. All the arguidos would have to be cleared first surely before the case was archived.
-
It seems to have been much more than an 'opinion' for the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard ... both investigative bodies have spent a considerable amount of time, resources and money investigating abduction.
Having primacy in the investigation one would make the assumption the contribution would match if not surpass the sum invested by the British authorities.
If it really is of interest to you perhaps the Portuguese equivalent of a freedom of information request might be in order to which I imagine the response would contain certain words along the lines of 'judicial' and 'secrecy'.
Maybe you could put your mind to equating for me what the Portuguese authorities expenditure on the present enquiry into Madeleine's disappearance has to the title of this thread?
You brought the question of time and expenditure into it,seemingly with out any figures to back the claim up.
-
You brought the question of time and expenditure into it,seemingly with out any figures to back the claim up.
Have you ever tried good old fashioned common sense? If the Portuguese conducted a review of Madeleine's case which led to them reopening the inquiry, that all took time, resources (personnel) and money just as it did for Scotland Yard.
I don't need to know the minutiae of each force's expenditure on paper clips to state the obvious. If you really do feel the need to know exact figures, perhaps the Portuguese will supply you with the relevant information on request.
-
Have you ever tried good old fashioned common sense? If the Portuguese conducted a review of Madeleine's case which led to them reopening the inquiry, that all took time, resources (personnel) and money just as it did for Scotland Yard.
I don't need to know the minutiae of each force's expenditure on paper clips to state the obvious. If you really do feel the need to know exact figures, perhaps the Portuguese will supply you with the relevant information on request.
That doesn't wash. You can't estimate expenditure without any information about the size of the operation.
-
That doesn't wash. You can't estimate expenditure without any information about the size of the operation.
Does this nit picking have anything at all to do with the thread title? Point out what it is and it might be worth answering you.
Just a reminder ... the topic is ... Were the McCanns innocent in the eyes of the law?
-
The McCanns were innocent in the eyes of Portuguese criminal law.
Its civil libel laws, however, place an onus on those accused to establish their innocence, often fiendishly difficult, even for the unquestionably innocent, as the McCanns unquestionably are, and they evidently didn't manage it to the satisfaction of some Portuguese judges in the higher echelons of the Portuguese civil courts.
There is the problem.
-
The McCanns were innocent in the eyes of Portuguese criminal law.
Its civil libel laws, however, place an onus on those accused to establish their innocence, often fiendishly difficult, even for the unquestionably innocent, as the McCanns unquestionably are, and they evidently didn't manage it to the satisfaction of some Portuguese judges in the higher echelons of the Portuguese civil courts.
There is the problem.
The accused were Amaral et al. The McCanns were the accusers and they failed to prove their accusations. The civil courts had no interest in the McCann's innocence or guilt as was clearly stated. The judges would not even have mentioned the subject if the McCann's lawyer hadn't used the argument, in her appeal to the Supreme Court, that archiving dispatch cleared them. They then had to reply and they did so, telling her she was wrong.
-
The accused were Amaral et al. The McCanns were the accusers and they failed to prove their accusations. The civil courts had no interest in the McCann's innocence or guilt as was clearly stated. The judges would not even have mentioned the subject if the McCann's lawyer hadn't used the argument, in her appeal to the Supreme Court, that archiving dispatch cleared them. They then had to reply and they did so, telling her she was wrong.
The SC judgement said there was no evidence that the McCanns are innocent
That is patently wrong....100% wrong
The SC judgement says that the despatch should not be treated as evidence of innocence
The despatch is evidence of innocence
The judges are wrong
-
The SC judgement said there was no evidence that the McCanns are innocent
That is patently wrong....100% wrong
The SC judgement says that the despatch should not be treated as evidence of innocence
The despatch is evidence of innocence
The judges are wrong
The McCann's case was that there was evidence they were innocent, the SC said that wasn't true.
-
The McCann's case was that there was evidence they were innocent, the SC said that wasn't true.
There is evidence of innocence in the archiving report
Others here have confused evidence and proof
There is no proof they are innocent but the archiving report supplies evidence of their innocence
The SC is wrong.... fact
-
There is evidence of innocence in the archiving report
Others here have confused evidence and proof
There is no proof they are innocent but the archiving report supplies evidence of their innocence
The SC is wrong.... fact
Ok, the McCann's said the case was archived because of evidence of their innocence the SC said not.
-
Ok, the McCann's said the case was archived because of evidence of their innocence the SC said not.
So now you have changed your statement
-
There is evidence of innocence in the archiving report
Others here have confused evidence and proof
There is no proof they are innocent but the archiving report supplies evidence of their innocence
The SC is wrong.... fact
Rather than giving us your conclusion show us stepwise how you came to that result please.
-
Rather than giving us your conclusion show us stepwise how you came to that result please.
first you ave to understand what evidence means
Then read the archiving despatch
The fact that there was no real evidence against them is evidence of innocence
-
first you ave to understand what evidence means
Then read the archiving despatch
The fact that there was no real evidence against them is evidence of innocence
That is one way of looking at it.
-
That is one way of looking at it.
The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.
Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.
all that is evidence of innocence...not proof...but evidence
-
first you ave to understand what evidence means
Then read the archiving despatch
The fact that there was no real evidence against them is evidence of innocence
The bolded text is a logical fallacy. You are saying;
If a proposition has not been proved, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
If I suspect that my neighbour's cat is digging up my flowers but I can't prove it that is not evidence that the cat is innocent. The cat may or may not have committed the offence.
-
The bolded text is a logical fallacy. You are saying;
If a proposition has not been proved, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
If I suspect that my neighbour's cat is digging up my flowers but I can't prove it that is not evidence that the cat is innocent. The cat may or may not have committed the offence.
i am not saying this......you talk of logic but you cannot grasp simple logic
the fact that that there is no real evidence against teh mccanns is evidence of their innocence.....I am not saying they are innocent...it really is simple but you cannot seem to grasp it
-
The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.
Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.
all that is evidence of innocence...not proof...but evidence
There are quite a few assumptions in there.
1. As no-one knows what time Madeleine disappeared how can it be said that the parents were not present?
2. The fact that the FSS were unable to find evidence where the dogs alerted doesn't mean the dogs were wrong.
3. Being unable to show how events happened doesn't mean they didn't happen.
4. Because no evidence of friends or contacts in Portugal was found doesn't mean there were none.
-
From the Supreme Court judgement.
‘The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn’t managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.'
‘There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling.'
‘It doesn’t therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence.’
-
i am not saying this......you talk of logic but you cannot grasp simple logic
the fact that that there is no real evidence against teh mccanns is evidence of their innocence.....I am not saying they are innocent...it really is simple but you cannot seem to grasp it
There was no real evidence against my neighbour's cat. How can that be seen as evidence of the cat's innocence? Please explain?
-
There was no real evidence against my neighbour's cat. How can that be seen as evidence of the cat's innocence? Please explain?
the fact that there is no evidence is evidence of the cats innocence...it doesnt prove the cats innocence
-
From the Supreme Court judgement.
‘The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn’t managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.'
‘There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling.'
‘It doesn’t therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence.’
you need to raed a little further....no one is talking about proof of innocence....we are talking about the SC statement taht there is no evidence of innocence
-
you need to raed a little further....no one is talking about proof of innocence....we are talking about the SC statement taht there is no evidence of innocence
The Mccann's have not been charged with any crime.
They should have been investigated for abandonment as indicated on previous occasions, as per Portuguese Law.
The absence of evidence does not mean a crime hasn't occurred.
The Mccanns accounts of events changed and were not consistent.
No evidence has come to light of abduction.
We have the dogs indications, and that is about that.
-
The bolded text is a logical fallacy. You are saying;
If a proposition has not been proved, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
If I suspect that my neighbour's cat is digging up my flowers but I can't prove it that is not evidence that the cat is innocent. The cat may or may not have committed the offence.
Your link might refer to something such as the theory that Martians inhabit Mars. Unless humans colonise Mars, we will never know, for sure, whether they do or don't; therefore the theory has not been disproved.
It (your link) is simply not applicable to a judicial process or establishment of a crime.
-
The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.
Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.
all that is evidence of innocence...not proof...but evidence
Agreed.
The following fact - being most pertinent IMO.
Quote:
NONE of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated.
End quote
Not 'some' or 'most' or 'many'........ NONE of the indications........
-
Agreed.
The following fact - being most pertinent IMO.
Quote:
NONE of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated.
End quote
Not 'some' or 'most' or 'many'........ NONE of the indications........
..and there is absolutely nothing to show abduction.
However, we have the dogs indications, and unlike humans, dogs don't lie. They react to stimuli.
-
The Mccann's have not been charged with any crime.
They should have been investigated for abandonment as indicated on previous occasions, as per Portuguese Law.
The absence of evidence does not mean a crime hasn't occurred.
The Mccanns accounts of events changed and were not consistent.
No evidence has come to light of abduction.
We have the dogs indications, and that is about that.
a totally jumbled post ignoring the point i am making
-
so....the statement by the SC court that there is no evidence of innocence is incorrect
-
a totally jumbled post ignoring the point i am making
Not jumbled at all.
-
so....the statement by the SC court that there is no evidence of innocence is incorrect
The Supreme Court judgement goes back to the original shelving of the case.
-
the fact that there is no evidence is evidence of the cats innocence...it doesnt prove the cats innocence
No, I asked you to explain, not to repeat the fallacy.
-
you need to raed a little further....no one is talking about proof of innocence....we are talking about the SC statement taht there is no evidence of innocence
Did you provide the cite I requested showing them saying that?
-
Did you provide the cite I requested showing them saying that?
yes..
Page 70
...(cf. Jónatas Machado, Freedom of Expression - Constitutional Dimensions, op. cit. pp. 566-7)
And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.
In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277° of the CPP).
The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277°-2)
There is, therefore, a remarkable difference, and not merely a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds of the filing order.
Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.
it absolutely IS evidence of innocence....but not proof
-
the fact that there is no evidence is evidence of the cats innocence...it doesnt prove the cats innocence
But didn't the SC really want proof of innocence not just evidence of innocence? What would have constituted proof of innocence? Have they set an impossible bar.
-
But didn't the SC really want proof of innocence not just evidence of innocence? What would have constituted proof of innocence? Have they set an impossible bar.
you are missing the point
they said taht the archiving report cannot be taken as EVIDENCE of innocence....that is plainly incorrect
-
But didn't the SC really want proof of innocence not just evidence of innocence? What would have constituted proof of innocence? Have they set an impossible bar.
Remind me Rob, what court case was the Supreme Court Judgement based on ?
-
you are missing the point
they said taht the archiving report cannot be taken as EVIDENCE of innocence....that is plainly incorrect
That is for the court to decide, not you. You merely have an opinion, they have authority
-
you are missing the point
they said taht the archiving report cannot be taken as EVIDENCE of innocence....that is plainly incorrect
You are right in the translated version it states "evidence of innocence not proof of innocence".
On page 70.
"Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence."
There is evidence of innocence and absolute evidence of innocence and it appears it is the absolute overwhelming evidence of innocence they were looking for. An impossible bar to hurdle.
-
That is for the court to decide, not you. You merely have an opinion, they have authority
True but they can still be wrong and Davel be correct.
-
True but they can still be wrong and Davel be correct.
So you would trust davel's judgement over the experienced Portuguese Judicial System ???
-
That is for the court to decide, not you. You merely have an opinion, they have authority
I am pointing out a fact...not an opinion
-
I am pointing out a fact...not an opinion
The only facts of interest are what is in the Portuguese Supreme Court judgement.
Your opinions are biased irrelevances.
-
Remind me Rob, what court case was the Supreme Court Judgement based on ?
You can read it as well as I can. I don't know as yet, that is why I am intending to break it down, but I'm sure it wasn't based on a single court case.
So you would trust davel's judgement over the experienced Portuguese Judicial System ???
Did I say that? But it is possible. You would have to agree there is some evidence of innocence even if there is not absolute proof of innocence. So what did they want?
I am pointing out a fact...not an opinion
And I would have to agree.
The only facts of interest are what is in the Portuguese Supreme Court judgement.
Your opinions are biased irrelevances.
And so are yours.
-
The only facts of interest are what is in the Portuguese Supreme Court judgement.
Your opinions are biased irrelevances.
you obviously cannot understand simple logic
I am stating a fact
-
You can read it as well as I can. I don't know as yet, that is why I am intending to break it down, but I'm sure it wasn't based on a single court case.
Did I say that? But it is possible. You would have to agree there is some evidence of innocence even if there is not absolute proof of innocence. So what did they want?
And I would have to agree.
And so are yours.
Yet you reply. %£&)**#
The only judgement you need worry about is that handed down by the Portuguese.
-
you obviously cannot understand simple logic
I am stating a fact
I have read the Portuguese Judgement.
All you wish to do is twist matters to favour the McCann's.
-
I have read the Portuguese Judgement.
All you wish to do is twist matters to favour the McCann's.
im stating a falsehood tha exists in the document......Im stating a fact which anyone who understands simple logic will realise is a fact. No one yet has been able to correct my logic
-
im stating a falsehood tha exists in the document......Im stating a fact which anyone who understands simple logic will realise is a fact. No one yet has been able to correct my logic
That is your opinion, as an amateur, and as a totally biased McCann backer.
You are not an expert in Portuguese law, just another googler who pretends otherwise.
-
im stating a falsehood tha exists in the document......Im stating a fact which anyone who understands simple logic will realise is a fact. No one yet has been able to correct my logic
Could be that no one cares. It's what the court says and does that is important.
-
That is your opinion, as an amateur, and as a totally biased McCann backer.
You are not an expert in Portuguese law, just another googler who pretends otherwise.
its not an opion its a fact
-
yes..
Page 70
...(cf. Jónatas Machado, Freedom of Expression - Constitutional Dimensions, op. cit. pp. 566-7)
And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.
In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277° of the CPP).
The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277°-2)
There is, therefore, a remarkable difference, and not merely a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds of the filing order.
Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.
it absolutely IS evidence of innocence....but not proof
For accuracy then, the judges did not say;
"there is no evidence of innocence"
they said;
"the alluded dispatch".....couldn't "be treated as evidence of innocence"
Quite a difference in the two, isn't there?
-
its not an opion its a fact
No davel , it isn't.
I suggest you read G-Unit's response in her post following yours, and then have the good grace to admit you got it wrong.
-
For accuracy then, the judges did not say;
"there is no evidence of innocence"
they said;
"the alluded dispatch".....couldn't "be treated as evidence of innocence"
Quite a difference in the two, isn't there?
no there is not quite a difference...
the despatch give reasons that the mccanns could be innocent and why they were removing the arguido status....that is providing evidence of innocence
-
No davel , it isn't.
I suggest you read G-Unit's response in her post following yours, and then have the good grace to admit you got it wrong.
gunit is wrong...perhaps she should have the good grace to admit it
-
gunit is wrong...perhaps she should have the good grace to admit it
Incorrect, as per normal.
-
Incorrect, as per normal.
in your very limited opinion...perhaps gunt could answer for herself
the archiving despatch provides evidence of the mccanns innocence....fact...not opinion
-
in your very limited opinion...perhaps gunt could answer for herself
the archiving despatch provides evidence of the mccanns innocence....fact...not opinion
All you do is argue the toss.
You are an amateur.
You do not know Portuguese Law and if you seriously expect people other than your fellow supporters to take your comments seriously, you are mistaken.
-
no there is not quite a difference...
the despatch give reasons that the mccanns could be innocent and why they were removing the arguido status....that is providing evidence of innocence
Well, the judges disagree with you. It will be interesting to see who is correct; three senior Portuguese judges or one internet poster, two doctors and a libel lawyer.
-
Has anyone bothered to run: "comprovacao da inocentacao"* through Google translate?
It comes up "proof of innocence" when I do it.
see page 70 para 6 of SC Judgement.
-
Well, the judges disagree with you. It will be interesting to see who is correct; three senior Portuguese judges or one internet poster, two doctors and a libel lawyer.
It will indeed, though I won't risk any money on Davel's interpretation. ?{)(**
I wonder how long we'll have to wait for the decision ?
-
Has anyone bothered to run: "comprovacao da inocentacao"* through Google translate?
It comes up "proof of innocence" when I do it.
see page 70 para 6 of SC Judgement.
Try running 'proof of innocence' into Portuguese and you get a much simpler, much more straightforward result.
Perhaps it is simply that legal judgements are couched in obscure or archaic terms. Or perhaps it is proper legalese and has a specific meaning within Portuguese law.
-
in your very limited opinion...perhaps gunt could answer for herself
the archiving despatch provides evidence of the mccanns innocence....fact...not opinion
It is fact, although with one proviso that, I think, needs to be brought out.
There is a criminal level of proof, and a civil level of proof.
I suspect, what these appeal-court judges held was that there was not a level of criminal 'proof' (sufficient to bring criminal charges) but (strictly in the opinion of the judges) a sufficiently high level of circumstantial evidence to make Amaral's thesis, at least theoretically possible, thus also making it permissible for him to say it, and even profit from it.
That is a highly partial, even partisan, view and the fact that the McCanns have been granted leave for yet a further appeal, when all avenues of appeal appear to have been exhausted, suggests there is some disquiet about the ruling, even in Portugal (and rightly so!)
-
Has anyone bothered to run: "comprovacao da inocentacao"* through Google translate?
It comes up "proof of innocence" when I do it.
see page 70 para 6 of SC Judgement.
Yes we have and it's been fully discussed
-
Yes we have and it's been fully discussed
Discussed ?
However, you will only find your fellows agreeing with you, in your distorted view of this case.
-
The McCanns, indeed, innocent in the eyes of the law:
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-lose-court-12537899
-
The McCanns, indeed, innocent in the eyes of the law:
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-lose-court-12537899
The case is in Portugal, not the UK.
As to UK papers ferryman, hardly reliable.
-
The McCanns, indeed, innocent in the eyes of the law:
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-lose-court-12537899
Your link says nothing re innocence or cleared. The SC verdict was public at 1st Feb 2017 but its supporting judgement was not. That got reported on 8 Feb, using the idea 'not cleared'.
-
Yes we have and it's been fully discussed
By whom?
A bunch of punters who are familiar with neither the Portuguese language nor its laws and who have only a fleeting acquaintanceship with English grammar ?.
I doubt that would have been an enlightening discussion.
-
Try running 'proof of innocence' into Portuguese and you get a much simpler, much more straightforward result.
Perhaps it is simply that legal judgements are couched in obscure or archaic terms. Or perhaps it is proper legalese and has a specific meaning within Portuguese law.
Why? Did the judges write their judgement in English then have it translated into Portuguese?
Perhaps the punters on here don't have a clue what that particular section of the Judgement really means and are using their ignorance of the matter to have a whack at the Portugueses Supreme Court?.
Put it to the test. Take the Judgement of the Court and the consensus of the supporters, to the book makers and see what odds you get on each outcome..... 8(>((
-
I have read the Portuguese Judgement.
All you wish to do is twist matters to favour the McCann's.
Did you read it in Portuguese?
-
Why? Did the judges write their judgement in English then have it translated into Portuguese?
Perhaps the punters on here don't have a clue what that particular section of the Judgement really means and are using their ignorance of the matter to have a whack at the Portugueses Supreme Court?.
Put it to the test. Take the Judgement of the Court and the consensus of the supporters, to the book makers and see what odds you get on each outcome..... 8(>((
I haven't read either the Portuguese or the English versions of the judgement. I prefer to await the next decision.
However, that Portuguese phrase is a mighty complex of saying proof of innocence. There is a much simpler way of saying proof of evidence in Portuguese. Hence either the judges like complex terms, or that particular term has a legal meaning that is not identical to proof of innocence.
-
I haven't read either the Portuguese or the English versions of the judgement. I prefer to await the next decision.
However, that Portuguese phrase is a mighty complex of saying proof of innocence. There is a much simpler way of saying proof of evidence in Portuguese. Hence either the judges like complex terms, or that particular term has a legal meaning that is not identical to proof of innocence.
We've been through all this before
Prove in a legal sense is provar
The judges used comprovar
Which Anne Guedes agreed with me does not mean proved but more
Demonstrate
Hope that helps
-
Your link says nothing re innocence or cleared. The SC verdict was public at 1st Feb 2017 but its supporting judgement was not. That got reported on 8 Feb, using the idea 'not cleared'.
Eh?
Of course 'not cleared'.
More accurately, never charged, and therefore never in need of being 'cleared'.
Unjustly accused.
By Portuguese (civil) law! Amaral was entitled to unjustly accuse them, and even write his accusation in a book he sold and profited from.
-
I haven't read either the Portuguese or the English versions of the judgement. I prefer to await the next decision.
However, that Portuguese phrase is a mighty complex of saying proof of innocence. There is a much simpler way of saying proof of evidence in Portuguese. Hence either the judges like complex terms, or that particular term has a legal meaning that is not identical to proof of innocence.
I understood you the first time but you chose an odd way to express your meaning. It must be catching.
The law usually does express things in complex terms that are both arcane and archaic. So what's new?. They much prefer to call a spade a "horticultural implement with a long wooden hilt and rectangular ferrous blade".
-
I understood you the first time but you chose an odd way to express your meaning. It must be catching.
The law usually does express things in complex terms that are both arcane and archaic. So what's new?. They much prefer to call a spade a "horticultural implement with a long wooden hilt and rectangular ferrous blade".
Wheras we all know it's a bl**dy shovel @)(++(*
-
For accuracy then, the judges did not say;
"there is no evidence of innocence"
they said;
"the alluded dispatch".....couldn't "be treated as evidence of innocence"
Quite a difference in the two, isn't there?
The prosecutors were of the view that Madeleine was abducted.
-
The prosecutors were of the view that Madeleine was abducted.
Such a pity they didn't tell the rest of us. I thought they said they hadn't a clue. Are you reading between the lines again?
But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann - apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment - or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
-
Such a pity they didn't tell the rest of us. I thought they said they hadn't a clue. Are you reading between the lines again?
But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann - apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment - or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Key word emboldened:
This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.
The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction
of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.
You know, how much clearer does anyone have to make what the prosecutors thought?
-
Key word emboldened:
of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.
You know, how much clearer does anyone have to make what the prosecutors thought?
You missed the equally word 'possibility' 8)--))
-
Why was that part of the prosecutor's archiving dispatch where they mocked Amaral for mimicking the style of a Holmes or a Poirot omitted from the files we read on line?
"They worked with an enormous margin of error and they achieved very little in terms of conclusive results, especially with regards to the fate of the unfortunate child."
They went on to say that the disappearance of Madeleine was not a plot from a book, but a serious crime.
"This is not, unfortunately, a police story, a crime fit for the investigative mind of a Sherlock Holmes or a Hercule Poirot, guided by the illusion that the forces of law and justice always restore order."
The prosecutors said despite the huge manhunt and inquiry, little had been achieved.
"No element of proof whatsoever was found which allows us to form any lucid, sensible, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances (of Madeleine's disappearance).
"Including, and most dramatically, establishing whether she is alive or dead, which seems more probable."
The prosecutors' use of the word illusion emphatically and unreservedly mocks Amaral.
-
Key word emboldened:
of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.
You know, how much clearer does anyone have to make what the prosecutors thought?
Saying that the parents couldn't be expected to guard their children against abduction isn't the same as saying an abduction occurred, you know.
I'll go with my quote, I think, because it was part of their conclusions at the end of the document and it's quite clear what they mean. They don't know what crime took place.
-
Saying that the parents couldn't be expected to guard their children against abduction isn't the same as saying an abduction occurred, you know.
I'll go with my quote, I think, because it was part of their conclusions at the end of the document and it's quite clear what they mean. They don't know what crime took place.
I am indeed the one who knows.
You are the one who needs to learn.
-
So I suppose the answer to the opening post is that the McCanns are innocent in the eyes of Portuguese criminal law.
But Portuguese civil law regards their status as sufficiently open to question to allow a former Portuguese policeman with a proven track-record of lying to write a book, itself unquestionably riddled with lies, that impugns the reputations of Madeleine's parents, get away with it and even profit from it.
-
I am indeed the one who knows.
You are the one who needs to learn.
You are the one who thinks he knows. I, on the other hand, know nothing for sure but I can understand what I read. I very much doubt if I could learn anything from you, if that's what you're suggesting. I haven't so far. .
-
The prosecutors were of the view that Madeleine was abducted.
The prosecutors didn't have a clue.
-
You are the one who thinks he knows. I, on the other hand, know nothing for sure but I can understand what I read. I very much doubt if I could learn anything from you, if that's what you're suggesting. I haven't so far. .
There is much wisdom in my words, and the words of others.
Your failure to learn from wisdom is a sad lack.
-
The prosecutors were, indeed, clear that Kate and Gerry could not be expected to foresee the possibility of the abduction of one their children.
-
The prosecutors were, indeed, clear that Kate and Gerry could not be expected to foresee the possibility of the abduction of one their children.
B.S. The prosecutors did not know if the McCann's told the truth.
The Mccann's locked the apartment during daytime.
Ipso facto, they knew there was a danger of burglary.
They recklessly and repeatedly endangered their childre, if it is true that the apartment was left unlocked.
-
Such a pity they didn't tell the rest of us. I thought they said they hadn't a clue. Are you reading between the lines again?
But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann - apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment - or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
That's what he does best Sundance:
The Strawbs might have put it thus:
"Now I'm a supporter man
Amazed at what I am
I say what I think, that Portugal stinks
Yes I'm a supporter man
As a supporter man I'm wise
To the lies of the sceptic spies
And I don't get fooled by the SC rules
'Cause I always read between the lines.
on my three; one....two......
ooooooohhh you don't get me I'm part of the.........
8(>((
-
Key word emboldened:
of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.
You know, how much clearer does anyone have to make what the prosecutors thought?
You are really failing at English comprehension.
-
You are really failing at English comprehension.
Characteristically cheap shot from a cheap-skate
-
Characteristically cheap shot from a cheap-skate
You are the one who seems to be struggling to grasp what they said and unfortunately there isn't any other way to say it.
-
You are the one who seems to be struggling to grasp what they said and unfortunately there isn't any other way to say it.
My post, in its original form, makes abundantly plain what the Prosecutors said, and didn't say ....
-
My post, its original form, makes abundantly plain what the Prosecutors said, and didn't say ....
Do you really think that anyone cares ?
-
Do you really think that anyone cares ?
Only people concerned about justice care.
-
Only people concerned about justice care.
You only care for the Mccann's.
The people responsible for initiating this case.
-
What my full post, reproduced in partial and misleading form by Slarti above, said:
This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.
The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them,
the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction
of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.
You know, how much clearer does anyone have to make what the prosecutors thought?
Presented in my (original) post in a way that emphasises the Prosecutors concluded Madeleine was abducted.
-
Only people concerned about justice care.
Define justice.
-
Define justice.
The correct conclusion reached whenever legal proceedings (civil or criminal) are commenced.
-
What my full post, reproduced in partial and misleading form by Slarti above, said:
Presented in my (original) post in a way that emphasises the Prosecutors concluded Madeleine was abducted.
I'll go twos up on the earlier post by Slarti. Your comprehensional skills are poor or whatever he said to that effect.
-
I'll go twos up on the earlier post by Slarti. Your comprehensional skills are poor or whatever he said to that effect.
So you are another who doesn't understand the Prosecutors concluded Madeleine was abducted?
How many more?
-
So you are another who doesn't understand the Prosecutors concluded Madeleine was abducted?
How many more?
The prosecutors did not know what had happened.
It was supposition.
-
I would question the reasoning and comprehension skills of anyone who has not realised by now that the parents are not involved in Maddies disappearance
The archiving dispatch which had more knowledge than anyone here ruled out woke and wandered which leaves abduction as the most likely scenario
-
What my full post, reproduced in partial and misleading form by Slarti above, said:
Presented in my (original) post in a way that emphasises the Prosecutors concluded Madeleine was abducted.
You will never convince anyone that you are right because everyone can read the report and see what you've done.
You have chosen one passage from a report and are insisting that represents the view of those who wrote the report. Anyone reading the whole report is aware that it concluded that the crime was unknown.
If you want to convince, you need to stop cutting and pasting the bit you like over and over and explain the bit you don't like; the conclusion. Conclusions, by the way, contain the FINAL position of the writers after all the information has been discussed and assessed.
it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction),
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Please explain the above passage, which is the final conclusion of the Prosecutors.
-
Personally, I would question reasoning and comprehension of anyone who thinks abduction is the only possibility, especially, as no forensic evidence of a third party in the apartment exists for the night Madeleine disappeared, and all so called 'leads' have ended up nowhere.
-
I would question the reasoning and comprehension skills of anyone who has not realised by now that the parents are not involved in Maddies disappearance
The archiving dispatch which had more knowledge than anyone here ruled out woke and wandered which leaves abduction as the most likely scenario
The Prosecutors (knowing more than you, I assume) didn't agree with you, of course;
dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
-
The Prosecutors (knowing more than you, I assume) didn't agree with you, of course;
dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
the archiving despatch seem to have more knowledge of woke and wandered ....which is what i was referring to...and ruled it out
SY having gained further knowledge have ruled out the parents...
that leaves abduction...that is the unpalatable truth for you
-
the archiving despatch seem to have more knowledge of woke and wandered ....which is what i was referring to...and ruled it out
SY having gained further knowledge have ruled out the parents...
that leaves abduction...that is the unpalatable truth for you
You cannot rule out a potential suspect(s), if the crime hasn't been determined, and it hasn't.
-
Personally, I would question reasoning and comprehension of anyone who thinks abduction is the only possibility, especially, as no forensic evidence of a third party in the apartment exists for the night Madeleine disappeared, and all so called 'leads' have ended up nowhere.
You don't need reason, comprehension and logic when you have a belief.
-
The prosecutors did not know what had happened.
It was supposition.
its almost as if ferryman wanted maddie to be abducted so in his eyes his heros are not responsible for their actions which normal peple know the mcanns are reposible for maddies fate
-
You cannot rule out a potential suspect(s), if the crime hasn't been determined, and it hasn't.
SY have ruled out the parents ...fact...
-
SY have ruled out the parents ...fact...
You cannot rule out potential suspects, if the crime is unknown.
...and the crime if any, IS UNKNOWN.
-
the archiving despatch seem to have more knowledge of woke and wandered ....which is what i was referring to...and ruled it out
SY having gained further knowledge have ruled out the parents...
that leaves abduction...that is the unpalatable truth for you
No, that's what you think is the truth. At the present moment the crime is as unknown as it was when the Portuguese investigation was archived.
-
SY have ruled out the parents ...fact...
Have they? How did you work that out?
-
its almost as if ferryman wanted maddie to be abducted so in his eyes his heros are not responsible for their actions which normal peple know the mcanns are reposible for maddies fate
The parents said Madeleine was abducted. Some of the PI's they employed said it too. No policeman has, as far as I know, ever clearly stated that abduction was the crime committed. There's been a lot of waffle, but no unequivocal statement.
-
The parents said Madeleine was abducted. Some of the PI's they employed said it too. No policeman has, as far as I know, ever clearly stated that abduction was the crime committed. There's been a lot of waffle, but no unequivocal statement.
And when, in May, they announce that in their professional opinion Madeleine was taken in a stranger abduction, where will that leave you?
-
And when, in May, they announce that in their professional opinion Madeleine was taken in a stranger abduction, where will that leave you?
If they don't where does that leave any one?
-
SY have ruled out the parents ...fact...
Have they? How did you work that out?
Cuz ex notice the ex,ex DCI Redwood said something along the lines of the McCanns nor their friends were suspects,mind it is hard to imagine them being suspects in the remit of OG which is to investigate as if an abduction took place in the uk when the crime was in Portugal.
-
Cuz ex notice the ex,ex DCI Redwood said something along the lines of the McCanns nor their friends were suspects,mind it is hard to imagine them being suspects in the remit of OG which is to investigate as if an abduction took place in the uk when the crime was in Portugal.
Well, that's it. There are two possibilities.
1. They have investigated all possibilities and ruled the parents and their friends out.
2. The parents and their friends were never ruled in, due to the remit.
Until and if ever OG clarifies it's remit we will not know.
-
Well, that's it. There are two possibilities.
1. They have investigated all possibilities and ruled the parents and their friends out.
2. The parents and their friends were never ruled in, due to the remit.
Until and if ever OG clarifies it's remit we will not know.
No 2,the remit was drawn up prior to any reading of the original case files or any new investigation started.
-
confusing that the two police forces seem to be barking up different trees.
-
confusing that the two police forces seem to be barking up different trees.
Maybe only one is letting the other do the barking and a wrong un at that.
-
And when, in May, they announce that in their professional opinion Madeleine was taken in a stranger abduction, where will that leave you?
If, not when, and it would leave me wanting a lot more than a 'professional opinion' emanating from a force with as many doubts about it's competence as the Metropolitan Police.
-
No 2,the remit was drawn up prior to any reading of the original case files or any new investigation started.
I can guarantee you have no evidence of that
-
If, not when, and it would leave me wanting a lot more than a 'professional opinion' emanating from a force with as many doubts about it's competence as the Metropolitan Police.
@)(++(* well there's a surprise. so basically it doesn't really matter what the police say you're sticking to your guns, right?
-
I can guarantee you have no evidence of that
Like wise I can guarantee you cannot prove otherwise.
-
No 2,the remit was drawn up prior to any reading of the original case files or any new investigation started.
It makes no difference what the remit was or when it was drawn up because the files and all the known information remain the same. If there was evidence in those files which pointed to the McCanns SY would have found it.
It is obvious that they have found no reasons to suspect the McCanns, - unless of course a massive conspiracy has been agreed/undertaken by the SY team - and they are all corrupt policemen.
It seems to me that some people would actually prefer that to be the case - rather than accept the fact that neither the McCanns nor their friends are suspects or persons of interest.
Very sad.
IMO
-
Like wise I can guarantee you cannot prove otherwise.
So you have made a statement as fact that you cannot support so it is merely your opinion
-
It makes no difference what the remit was or when it was drawn up because the files and all the known information remain the same. If there was evidence in those files which pointed to the McCanns SY would have found it.
It is obvious that they have found no reasons to suspect the McCanns, - unless of course a massive conspiracy has been agreed/undertaken by the SY team - and they are all corrupt policemen.
It seems to me that some people would actually prefer that to be the case - rather than accept the fact that neither the McCanns nor their friends are suspects or persons of interest.
Very sad.
IMO
The whole point is Benice, there is a major lack of evidence, and no matter some people may bluster to the contrary, the crime, if one happened, is not determined.
-
The whole point is Benice, there is a major lack of evidence, and no matter some people may bluster to the contrary, the crime, if one happened, is not determined.
You have missed the point. What has any of that got to do with my post regarding the 'remit' undertaken by SY and the fact that no matter what that remit was - the files and info available to SY remain exactly the same.
If evidence had come to light from those files which pointed the finger at the McCanns - then how do you think SY would have dealt with that information?
-
While we are all playing the old "well if a sewing machine had bigger wheels it might be a car" game, how about this for an idea:
The Met say one thing and The PJ say something different............ then what?
-
I looked at the remit last year and it looked like it was drawn up about 6 months after the start of the review
-
You have missed the point. What has any of that got to do with my post regarding the 'remit' undertaken by SY and the fact that no matter what that remit was - the files and info available to SY remain exactly the same.
If evidence had come to light from those files which pointed the finger at the McCanns - then how do you think SY would have dealt with that information?
SY had only one remit, abduction.
There is no indication they have interviewed the McCann's or their companions at the time.
The 'investigation' for want of a better term, will be closed shortly, without the cause of Madeleine's disappearance being known, or her fate determined.
I have said on many occasions, the only thing likely to solve this case is a confession, and I cannot see that happening.
-
@)(++(* well there's a surprise. so basically it doesn't really matter what the police say you're sticking to your guns, right?
No, as usual you have put words into my mouth. A bald statement from OG saying they have concluded that Madeleine was abducted is not acceptable. More detail would be needed to make it worthy of consideration.
-
So you have made a statement as fact that you cannot support so it is merely your opinion
Like any one that claims an abduction,it is only an opinion.
-
Like any one that claims an abduction,it is only an opinion.
So your claim re the remit is simply your opinion
-
No, as usual you have put words into my mouth. A bald statement from OG saying they have concluded that Madeleine was abducted is not acceptable. More detail would be needed to make it worthy of consideration.
Not acceptable to you maybe, and why on earth should OG give you any details at all to try and convince you of their conclusions? Isn't it true that if as is likely OG conclude that in all likelihood Madeleine was abducted that you and many fellow sceptics will view this not as confirmation of the McCanns' uninvolvement in Madeleine's disappearance but as some sort of coded message that the Met couldn't find enough evidence to pin it on them?
-
Not acceptable to you maybe, and why on earth should OG give you any details at all to try and convince you of their conclusions? Isn't it true that if as is likely OG conclude that in all likelihood Madeleine was abducted that you and many fellow sceptics will view this not as confirmation of the McCanns' uninvolvement in Madeleine's disappearance but as some sort of coded message that the Met couldn't find enough evidence to pin it on them?
Were a crime committed it was committed in Portugal where The MPS have no jurisdiction.
The Portuguese Police are, we are lead to believe, conducting their own investigation. That is the one which will hold sway.
-
Not acceptable to you maybe, and why on earth should OG give you any details at all to try and convince you of their conclusions? Isn't it true that if as is likely OG conclude that in all likelihood Madeleine was abducted that you and many fellow sceptics will view this not as confirmation of the McCanns' uninvolvement in Madeleine's disappearance but as some sort of coded message that the Met couldn't find enough evidence to pin it on them?
Not just me, Alfie. The relevant question is why shouldn't OG release a detailed explanation of how and why they have reached their conclusions? They promised to be open and transparent so it's quite reasonable for people to expect and be given a full explanation.
-
Not just me, Alfie. The relevant question is why shouldn't OG release a detailed explanation of how and why they have reached their conclusions? They promised to be open and transparent so it's quite reasonable for people to expect and be given a full explanation.
They also said they would not be providing a running commentary. Very appropriate in my opinion, for a criminal investigation involving a missing child.
-
They also said they would not be providing a running commentary. Very appropriate in my opinion, for a criminal investigation involving a missing child.
Yet there was a running commentary when people were being nterviwed or re-interviewed in Portugal .
-
They also said they would not be providing a running commentary. Very appropriate in my opinion, for a criminal investigation involving a missing child.
if maddie was alive she would be nearly 14 so not a child she isnt 3 anymore
-
I don't recall making any comment one way or another about what the Portuguese Attorney General thinks. My post was 'bout which set of rozzers was top of the 'eap like wiv respect to this 'tic'lar 'vestigation.
That's the second time time you have done that recently to my posts whilst protesting there is nothing wrong with your comprehensional skills....................... &%+((£
I am here neither to denigrate the Drs McCann nor support Sr Amaral. Nor waste my time banging on about things I don't stand a hope in hell of changing. I am here to poke fun at supporters who refuse to see the wood for the trees.
Now if you and your cohorts don't like that, tuff but don't put words in my mouth, and if it is not to forum rules no doubt I will be lobbed out.
Like Lemmy said "win some lose some it's all the same to me the pleasure is to play"
-
I don't recall making any comment one way or another about what the Portuguese Attorney General thinks. My post was 'bout which set of rozzers was top of the 'eap like wiv respect to this 'tic'lar 'vestigation.
That's the second time time you have done that recently to my posts whilst protesting there is nothing wrong with your comprehensional skills....................... &%+((£
I am here neither to denigrate the Drs McCann nor support Sr Amaral. Nor wmaste my time banging on about things I don't stand a hope in hell of changing. I am here to poke fun at supporters who refuse to see the wood for the trees.
Now if you and your cohorts don't like that, tuff but don't put words in my mouth, and if it is not to forum rules no doubt I will be lobbed out.
Like Lemmy said "win some lose some it's all the same to me the pleasure is to play"
The Portuguese have primacy in a joint investigation.
-
I looked at the remit last year and it looked like it was drawn up about 6 months after the start of the review
12/05/2011 was the date of OG being drawn up,this is the day a review was set up,this by their announcement is where to treat it as if an abduction was in the uk was drawn up.When asked on LBC radio last year what did 30 officers do Hogan Howe explained the multitude of paper work that had to be translated,it never took 6 months it possible was more like 2 yrs when in 2013 it seems as if the review turned into an investigation.
-
No, as usual you have put words into my mouth. A bald statement from OG saying they have concluded that Madeleine was abducted is not acceptable. More detail would be needed to make it worthy of consideration.
Not sure on that, a professional opinion was raised on the finding of one toy car it seems elsewhere.
-
Not just me, Alfie. The relevant question is why shouldn't OG release a detailed explanation of how and why they have reached their conclusions? They promised to be open and transparent so it's quite reasonable for people to expect and be given a full explanation.
How detailed an explanation will satisfy you and what would be a similar example of a Met closing a case and releasing detailed information to satisfy the idle curiosity of the public?
-
How detailed an explanation will satisfy you and what would be a similar example of a Met closing a case and releasing detailed information to satisfy the idle curiosity of the public?
About £12 to £13 millions worth, preferably with an explanation as to why so many officers were removed from dealing with serious crimes in London for so long. That would do nicely.
I am not holding my breath.
Mind you, it would leave an awful lot of ammunition for the sceptics if the remit is abduction, and a Herculean effort does not dish up some evidence thereof.
I fully expect the moderators to be up to their eyeballs with deletions if such should happen.
-
talk about a difficult situation.
-
How detailed an explanation will satisfy you and what would be a similar example of a Met closing a case and releasing detailed information to satisfy the idle curiosity of the public?
I don't expect the case to be closed, it will just go dormant; it pretty much is now. There will be some sort of announcement meaning nothing, with vague promises to 'investigate any new evidence' and then they'll stop.
As usual, they will release no information and those who feel it was all a waste of time will lobby for an inquiry to find out what the heck they've been doing.
-
The Portuguese have primacy in a joint investigation.
The case belongs to Portugal. There is no joint investigation.
-
I don't expect the case to be closed, it will just go dormant; it pretty much is now. There will be some sort of announcement meaning nothing, with vague promises to 'investigate any new evidence' and then they'll stop.
As usual, they will release no information and those who feel it was all a waste of time will lobby for an inquiry to find out what the heck they've been doing.
What an arrogant display that will be.
-
About £12 to £13 millions worth, preferably with an explanation as to why so many officers were removed from dealing with serious crimes in London for so long. That would do nicely.
I am not holding my breath.
Mind you, it would leave an awful lot of ammunition for the sceptics if the remit is abduction, and a Herculean effort does not dish up some evidence thereof.
I fully expect the moderators to be up to their eyeballs with deletions if such should happen.
If you had followed the case you would understand why so many officers were involved. There was simply so much information for the SY officers to examine....it's a shame the PJ were not capable of carrying out a proper investigation in the first place.
-
What an arrogant display that will be.
David Cameron wanted to 'help the parents'. The Met agreed to bring their expertise to the task. At last a proper investigation was going to take place. The Met were professionals and they had HOLMES! The supporters of the McCanns were so pleased.
Now the OG investigation is all but closed. Nothing appears to have been achieved. No crime has been identified. No child has been found. I'm surprised the supporters are content with that. The parents haven't been helped, they are exactly where they were in the beginning. They and their supporters don't seem interested in finding out what OG have been doing though. How strange.
-
David Cameron wanted to 'help the parents'. The Met agreed to bring their expertise to the task. At last a proper investigation was going to take place. The Met were professionals and they had HOLMES! The supporters of the McCanns were so pleased.
Now the OG investigation is all but closed. Nothing appears to have been achieved. No crime has been identified. No child has been found. I'm surprised the supporters are content with that. The parents haven't been helped, they are exactly where they were in the beginning. They and their supporters don't seem interested in finding out what OG have been doing though. How strange.
What a short sighted post. SY have done the best they can in the circumstances....its not over yet but if they have found nothing at least they tried and I think maddie deserves that
-
David Cameron wanted to 'help the parents'. The Met agreed to bring their expertise to the task. At last a proper investigation was going to take place. The Met were professionals and they had HOLMES! The supporters of the McCanns were so pleased.
Now the OG investigation is all but closed. Nothing appears to have been achieved. No crime has been identified. No child has been found. I'm surprised the supporters are content with that. The parents haven't been helped, they are exactly where they were in the beginning. They and their supporters don't seem interested in finding out what OG have been doing though. How strange.
We just don't have the same arrogant sense of entitlement that the detractors seem to have. We (if I may speak for fellow supporters) realised from the outset that finding Madeleine so many years after her disappearance was always going to be the tallest of orders, and speaking for myself I never really held out much hope that the child would be found and returned to her family. Nevertheless I firmly believe that Madeleine was failed by the initial investigation and that she deserved the renewed efforts made by Op Grange put into discovering what may have happened to her. I'm not hung up about the millions of pounds spent on the case, I really couldn't care less if it cost £10m or £50m, there are many other things the government spends vast sums of money on that will get me far more hot under the collar.
-
We just don't have the same arrogant sense of entitlement that the detractors seem to have. We (if I may speak for fellow supporters) realised from the outset that finding Madeleine so many years after her disappearance was always going to be the tallest of orders, and speaking for myself I never really held out much hope that the child would be found and returned to her family. Nevertheless I firmly believe that Madeleine was failed by the initial investigation and that she deserved the renewed efforts made by Op Grange put into discovering what may have happened to her. I'm not hung up about the millions of pounds spent on the case, I really couldn't care less if it cost £10m or £50m, there are many other things the government spends vast sums of money on that will get me far more hot under the collar.
My sentiments exactly.
-
We just don't have the same arrogant sense of entitlement that the detractors seem to have. We (if I may speak for fellow supporters) realised from the outset that finding Madeleine so many years after her disappearance was always going to be the tallest of orders, and speaking for myself I never really held out much hope that the child would be found and returned to her family. Nevertheless I firmly believe that Madeleine was failed by the initial investigation and that she deserved the renewed efforts made by Op Grange put into discovering what may have happened to her. I'm not hung up about the millions of pounds spent on the case, I really couldn't care less if it cost £10m or £50m, there are many other things the government spends vast sums of money on that will get me far more hot under the collar.
my sentiments exactly
-
We just don't have the same arrogant sense of entitlement that the detractors seem to have. We (if I may speak for fellow supporters) realised from the outset that finding Madeleine so many years after her disappearance was always going to be the tallest of orders, and speaking for myself I never really held out much hope that the child would be found and returned to her family. Nevertheless I firmly believe that Madeleine was failed by the initial investigation and that she deserved the renewed efforts made by Op Grange put into discovering what may have happened to her. I'm not hung up about the millions of pounds spent on the case, I really couldn't care less if it cost £10m or £50m, there are many other things the government spends vast sums of money on that will get me far more hot under the collar.
My sentiments exactly.
-
Hardly any surprise about the McCann backer comments above.
However, the only visible sense of entitlement, comes clearly from the McCann's and those who support them.
This expectation that everyone else, i.e. tax payers should pay for the McCann's incompetence as parents, is and remains truly beyond the pale. That doesn't even include the money spent by the Portuguese tax payers.
The PJ did the best in the circumstances, and it is abundantly clear, the SY one has not gone any further than the original PJ one, in determining what happened.
What is visible, of course, is the blame game.
Now, here's a thought, why don't the Mccanns apologize to both the British and Portuguese tax payers, for all the money spent, which came as a result of their actions in initiating this case.
-
We just don't have the same arrogant sense of entitlement that the detractors seem to have. We (if I may speak for fellow supporters) realised from the outset that finding Madeleine so many years after her disappearance was always going to be the tallest of orders, and speaking for myself I never really held out much hope that the child would be found and returned to her family. Nevertheless I firmly believe that Madeleine was failed by the initial investigation and that she deserved the renewed efforts made by Op Grange put into discovering what may have happened to her. I'm not hung up about the millions of pounds spent on the case, I really couldn't care less if it cost £10m or £50m, there are many other things the government spends vast sums of money on that will get me far more hot under the collar.
My sentiments exactly.
-
We just don't have the same arrogant sense of entitlement that the detractors seem to have. We (if I may speak for fellow supporters) realised from the outset that finding Madeleine so many years after her disappearance was always going to be the tallest of orders, and speaking for myself I never really held out much hope that the child would be found and returned to her family. Nevertheless I firmly believe that Madeleine was failed by the initial investigation and that she deserved the renewed efforts made by Op Grange put into discovering what may have happened to her. I'm not hung up about the millions of pounds spent on the case, I really couldn't care less if it cost £10m or £50m, there are many other things the government spends vast sums of money on that will get me far more hot under the collar.
It's not a sense of entitlement and it's not arrogant to expect our public servants to be accountable. If the relatives of the Hillsborough victims hadn't bothered to ask questions it would still be the victims bearing the blame. The days are gone when everyone respected those in authority and trusted them to do the right thing. Too many clay feet have been exposed for that. Anyone accepting things at face value these days is, frankly, foolish imo.
-
Hardly any surprise about the McCann backer comments above.
However, the only visible sense of entitlement, comes clearly from the McCann's and those who support them.
This expectation that everyone else, i.e. tax payers should pay for the McCann's incompetence as parents, is and remains truly beyond the pale. That doesn't even include the money spent by the Portuguese tax payers.
The PJ did the best in the circumstances, and it is abundantly clear, the SY one has not gone any further than the original PJ one, in determining what happened.
What is visible, of course, is the blame game.
Now, here's a thought, why don't the Mccanns apologize to both the British and Portuguese tax payers, for all the money spent, which came as a result of their actions in initiating this case.
The Mccanns are victims of crime and have no need to apologise to anyone
-
The Mccanns are victims of crime and have no need to apologise to anyone
You have revealed your true colours there.
Madeleine is the victim in this case.
Any potential perpetrator(s)of a possible crime, if any occurred, has not been determined.
..and yes, the Mccann's do need to apologize. Their actions in leaving their children by themselves initiated this case.
-
It's not a sense of entitlement and it's not arrogant to expect our public servants to be accountable. If the relatives of the Hillsborough victims hadn't bothered to ask questions it would still be the victims bearing the blame. The days are gone when everyone respected those in authority and trusted them to do the right thing. Too many clay feet have been exposed for that. Anyone accepting things at face value these days is, frankly, foolish imo.
Are you equating Operation Grange with the police cover up at Hillsborough?!
-
It's not a sense of entitlement and it's not arrogant to expect our public servants to be accountable. If the relatives of the Hillsborough victims hadn't bothered to ask questions it would still be the victims bearing the blame. The days are gone when everyone respected those in authority and trusted them to do the right thing. Too many clay feet have been exposed for that. Anyone accepting things at face value these days is, frankly, foolish imo.
Do you think the police are duty bound to give full disclosure on every single case they investigate, even if the case is not closed but just shelved pending new evidence?
-
Are you equating Operation Grange with the police cover up at Hillsborough?!
No. It's just an example, there's plenty others which cast doubt on the commitment and efficiency of our police.
-
No. It's just an example, there's plenty others which cast doubt on the commitment and efficiency of our police.
The irony is Op Grange could give you the full disclosure you demand and you still wouldn't accept it if it didn't tell you what you wanted to hear.
-
Do you think the police are duty bound to give full disclosure on every single case they investigate, even if the case is not closed but just shelved pending new evidence?
No I don't. This case is different. The Met have never criticised those with the right and duty to investigate it, but others have. The inference was that the Met could achieve what the PJ couldn't. Having had more time, more money, more information and no media circus they ought to explain just what, if anything, they have managed to achieve.
-
No I don't. This case is different. The Met have never criticised those with the right and duty to investigate it, but others have. The inference was that the Met could achieve what the PJ couldn't. Having had more time, more money, more information and no media circus they ought to explain just what, if anything, they have managed to achieve.
Having "more time" is a positive disadvantage in a missing child case. May 2007 was the optimum time.
-
The irony is Op Grange could give you the full disclosure you demand and you still wouldn't accept it if it didn't tell you what you wanted to hear.
I don't have any desire to hear anything in particular except a clear explanation of their conclusions and disclosure of the evidence on which they are based. I may question their findings if their evidence doesn't make sense, and why not?
Unlike some, I have no investment in a particular theory. People like that seem prepared to go further than refusing to accept things, they attack anyone who doesn't say what they want to hear. You only have to look at the bashing Amaral, the PJ, Portugal, it's judges and it's Judiciary have been subjected to.
-
Having "more time" is a positive disadvantage in a missing child case. May 2007 was the optimum time.
What a shame the UK didn't poke it's nose in at the time. Oh, hang on, it did and added to the confusion, according to Gamble's 'scoping report'.
Police chiefs fighting to be seen to be helping in the search for Madeleine McCann alienated Portuguese authorities and had a long-term impact on the investigation, report finds
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11068928/Secret-Madeleine-McCann-report-finds-competing-British-forces-hampered-inquiry.html
-
About £12 to £13 millions worth, preferably with an explanation as to why so many officers were removed from dealing with serious crimes in London for so long. That would do nicely.
I am not holding my breath.
Mind you, it would leave an awful lot of ammunition for the sceptics if the remit is abduction, and a Herculean effort does not dish up some evidence thereof.
I fully expect the moderators to be up to their eyeballs with deletions if such should happen.
For that reason OG can't fail to bring any evidence of an abduction not because of supposed sceptics but because of the time and money spent investigating a crime on a foreign soil.
-
You have revealed your true colours there.
Madeleine is the victim in this case.
Any potential perpetrator(s)of a possible crime, if any occurred, has not been determined.
..and yes, the Mccann's do need to apologize. Their actions in leaving their children by themselves initiated this case.
maddie is a victim but so are her family....thats a fact
-
We just don't have the same arrogant sense of entitlement that the detractors seem to have. We (if I may speak for fellow supporters) realised from the outset that finding Madeleine so many years after her disappearance was always going to be the tallest of orders, and speaking for myself I never really held out much hope that the child would be found and returned to her family. Nevertheless I firmly believe that Madeleine was failed by the initial investigation and that she deserved the renewed efforts made by Op Grange put into discovering what may have happened to her. I'm not hung up about the millions of pounds spent on the case, I really couldn't care less if it cost £10m or £50m, there are many other things the government spends vast sums of money on that will get me far more hot under the collar.
I belatedly also echo those sentiments.
-
I don't have any desire to hear anything in particular except a clear explanation of their conclusions and disclosure of the evidence on which they are based. I may question their findings if their evidence doesn't make sense, and why not?
Unlike some, I have no investment in a particular theory. People like that seem prepared to go further than refusing to accept things, they attack anyone who doesn't say what they want to hear. You only have to look at the bashing Amaral, the PJ, Portugal, it's judges and it's Judiciary have been subjected to.
I think you're being somewhat disingenuous there. We already know in advance that you don't believe that abduction is either logical or plausible in this case, so if the Met conclude that that is the only plausible explanation and set out their reasons why, I'm pretty sure you still won't accept it. You want to hear that the parents are suspects because it will validate your years of "doubting".
-
I don't have any desire to hear anything in particular except a clear explanation of their conclusions and disclosure of the evidence on which they are based. I may question their findings if their evidence doesn't make sense, and why not?
Unlike some, I have no investment in a particular theory. People like that seem prepared to go further than refusing to accept things, they attack anyone who doesn't say what they want to hear. You only have to look at the bashing Amaral, the PJ, Portugal, it's judges and it's Judiciary have been subjected to.
how would amaral fare on this forum
posting opinion as fact without any evidence
making libellous posts
your hero would be banned ......
-
I think you're being somewhat disingenuous there. We already know in advance that you don't believe that abduction is either logical or plausible in this case, so if the Met conclude that that is the only plausible explanation and set out their reasons why, I'm pretty sure you still won't accept it. You want to hear that the parents are suspects because it will validate your years of "doubting".
I don't know exactly what you mean by disingenuous, but I don't like it as it implies I lie, which I don't. As to the rest of your post it consists mostly of you telling me a) what I think and b) what I intend to think. I don't know why you're so obsessed with my thoughts rather than my posts, but you obviously don't need an answer because a) You seem to think I lie and b) You already know what I think, apparently.
-
how would amaral fare on this forum
posting opinion as fact without any evidence
making libellous posts
your hero would be banned ......
My hero? I think you're mistaking me for someone else, I have no heroes.
As he managed to write a whole book without being found guilty of any of the above I expect he would find staying within the rules of a forum pretty easy, unlike some.
-
I don't know exactly what you mean by disingenuous, but I don't like it as it implies I lie, which I don't. As to the rest of your post it consists mostly of you telling me a) what I think and b) what I intend to think. I don't know why you're so obsessed with my thoughts rather than my posts, but you obviously don't need an answer because a) You seem to think I lie and b) You already know what I think, apparently.
I just don't like dishonesty that's all. I'm certainly not obsessed with your thoughts, what a strange accusation!
-
My hero? I think you're mistaking me for someone else, I have no heroes.
As he managed to write a whole book without being found guilty of any of the above I expect he would find staying within the rules of a forum pretty easy, unlike some.
his book cannot be quoted on this forum as it is libellous
he claims he can prove maddie died in the apartment.....he has no evidence
if you think his theories would be accepted on this forum you are deluded
-
The supporters have gone all Sesame Street on us again. I will not ask who are Bert and Ernie and who is Big Bird.
However this week's words are "arrogant" and "sentiment".
Or I could do it all in the style of Mrs Grose[this is where we came in @)(++(*]: "Merciful heavens children what manner of game are you playing now".
-
The supporters have gone all Sesame Street on us again. I will not ask who are Bert and Ernie and who is Big Bird.
However this week's words are "arrogant" and "sentiment".
Or I could do it all in the style of Mrs Grose[this is where we came in @)(++(*]: "Merciful heavens children what manner of game are you playing now".
there was a time when you were above the pathetic name calling behaviour on this forum...now you seem to be leading it....its obviously symptomatic of the company you are keeping
-
there was a time when you were above the pathetic name calling behaviour on this forum...now you seem to be leading it....its obviously symptomatic of the company you are keeping
Goading and insulting post 'liked' by a moderator too, that says it all.
-
there was a time when you were above the pathetic name calling behaviour on this forum...now you seem to be leading it....its obviously symptomatic of the company you are keeping
Oh rather, indubitably old stick and that is a fact.
-
Goading and insulting post 'liked' by a moderator too, that says it all.
Says the past master at goading and insulting. You bleed too easily squire @)(++(*
-
Oh rather, indubitably old stick and that is a fact.
oh dear...your condition is deteriorating
-
Says the past master at goading and insulting. You bleed too easily squire @)(++(*
he and davel love goading but they report us for goading @)(++(*
-
he and davel love goading but they report us for goading @)(++(*
I haven't got time for goading, but it sounds fun.
-
his book cannot be quoted on this forum as it is libellous
he claims he can prove maddie died in the apartment.....he has no evidence
if you think his theories would be accepted on this forum you are deluded
I've quoted from his book on the forum for the sake of accuracy. Sometimes people will accuse him of saying things he didn't say.
-
I've quoted from his book on the forum for the sake of accuracy. Sometimes people will accuse him of saying things he didn't say.
He said in his documentary
Which was part of the case
Maddie died in the apartment
And I can prove it
He can't
He didn't understand the dog alerts
He didn't understand the forensic reports
And according to him neither did any other of the pj
What chance of justice for Maddie with him in charge
-
He said in his documentary
Which was part of the case
Maddie died in the apartment
And I can prove it
He can't
He didn't understand the dog alerts
He didn't understand the forensic reports
And according to him neither did any other of the pj
What chance of justice for Maddie with him in charge
He was case coordinator for a few months.
Doh.
As to 'justice for Maddie', I hold responsibility for what happened with her parents. No one else has been found to have been involved.
-
he and davel love goading but they report us for goading @)(++(*
Indeed Carly, with his history on here.
-
He was case coordinator for a few months.
Doh.
As to 'justice for Maddie', I hold responsibility for what happened with her parents. No one else has been found to have been involved.
If you have followed the case you might understand that he claims the whole of the pj agreed with him
He claims his theory was based on the official files
Obviously you have not been following the case
-
If you have followed the case you might understand that he claims the whole of the pj agreed with him
He claims his theory was based on the official files
Obviously you have not been following the case
Predictable post.
So, just remind me, when was accidental death disproved ?
-
I just don't like dishonesty that's all. I'm certainly not obsessed with your thoughts, what a strange accusation!
Neither do I and I don't appreciate being accused of it either, so please desist. I'm pleased you're not obsessed with my thoughts and look forward to seeing less analysis of them in the future.
-
Predictable post.
So, just remind me, when was accidental death disproved ?
The parents have been ruled out by SY
-
The parents have been ruled out by SY
There is no record that the parents were interviewed by SY.
The crime, if one occurred is still unknown.
You harbour this strange belief, IMO, as do others of your kind, that it is Amaral's theory that made people think Madeleine is dead.
It isn't. People came to that conclusion without him.
-
He said in his documentary
Which was part of the case
Maddie died in the apartment
And I can prove it
He can't
He didn't understand the dog alerts
He didn't understand the forensic reports
And according to him neither did any other of the pj
What chance of justice for Maddie with him in charge
It must be very annoying that it was ruled to be within his rights to say what he said. You and the McCanns need to accept that sometimes you will read, see or hear things you don't like.
-
The parents have been ruled out by SY
Why shouldn't they be,by OG's remit its an abduction being looked at,why? should they be under suspicion of this?
-
It must be very annoying that it was ruled to be within his rights to say what he said. You and the McCanns need to accept that sometimes you will read, see or hear things you don't like.
It's not annoying at all as it doesn't affect me in the slightest
Will it be annoying for you if SY confirm that the parents are not involved and they believe Maddie was abducted
-
Why shouldn't they be,by OG's remit its an abduction being looked at,why? should they be under suspicion of this?
DCI Redwood seemed to contradict himself - maybe it's catching LOL. "Primarily what we sought to do from the beginning is try and draw everything back to zero if you like. Try and take everything back to the beginning and re-analyse and reassess everything, accepting nothing."
-
The parents have been ruled out by SY
Whatever you think SY have decided it isn't important because it isn't and never was their case. In the unlikely event they get enough evidence for a trial they will have to go cap in hand to the Portuguese and persuade them to proceed the matter. I suspect very strong evidence would be needed before that happened.
-
Whatever you think SY have decided it isn't important because it isn't and never was their case. In the unlikely event they get enough evidence for a trial they will have to go cap in hand to the Portuguese and persuade them to proceed the matter. I suspect very strong evidence would be needed before that happened.
If they do find evidence then the Portuguese will have no choice but to assist them
-
oh dear...your condition is deteriorating
I have been aware of that for quite sometime. It is terminal and that's a fact.
-
It's not annoying at all as it doesn't affect me in the slightest
Will it be annoying for you if SY confirm that the parents are not involved and they believe Maddie was abducted
It gives that impression when you keep repeating the same thing over and over. The book is in the past and it didn't offend anyone's rights so why keep on about it?
As the case doesn't and never did belong to SY they can believe and say what they like. They may look silly if they can't support their beliefs with evidence, but that's their problem. I don't expect to be annoyed, but I might be amused.
-
If they do find evidence then the Portuguese will have no choice but to assist them
It will be interesting to see how that works and pans out.
-
It gives that impression when you keep repeating the same thing over and over. The book is in the past and it didn't offend anyone's rights so why keep on about it?
As the case doesn't and never did belong to SY they can believe and say what they like. They may look silly if they can't support their beliefs with evidence, but that's their problem. I don't expect to be annoyed, but I might be amused.
You may think SY will look sill but as someone who has respect for Amaral then you look rather silly
The fact that the court ruled against the McCanns does not mean the book did not offend their rights
It means the court does not seem to understand the declaration of human rights which they should respect
It makes them look rather silly
-
If they do find evidence then the Portuguese will have no choice but to assist them
Assist them? The boot is on the other foot, my friend. The role of OG is to assist the Portuguese, not the other way round. Any evidence they offer will be assessed by the Portuguese and any prosecution will take place only if the Portuguese think the evidence is sufficient. The choice is theirs.
-
You may think SY will look sill but as someone who has respect for Amaral then you look rather silly
The fact that the court ruled against the McCanns does not mean the book did not offend their rights
It means the court does not seem to understand the declaration of human rights which they should respect
It makes them look rather silly
Pure drivel.
It is Madeleine's rights and her siblings which were impinged, by their parents, who did not protect them.
Don't try the 'poor me McCann parent act', that washed thin a long time ago.
-
You may think SY will look sill but as someone who has respect for Amaral then you look rather silly
The fact that the court ruled against the McCanns does not mean the book did not offend their rights
It means the court does not seem to understand the declaration of human rights which they should respect
It makes them look rather silly
Now you're looking silly unless you can identify the exact legal points the judges got wrong and why. @)(++(*
-
Now you're looking silly unless you can identify the exact legal points the judges got wrong and why. @)(++(*
amarals book clearly breaches the mccanns right to a good name under european law
-
amarals book clearly breaches the mccanns right to a good name under european law
They have been through the court system and failed.
it is time they accepted that, and pay up what they owe.
-
DCI Redwood seemed to contradict himself - maybe it's catching LOL. "Primarily what we sought to do from the beginning is try and draw everything back to zero if you like. Try and take everything back to the beginning and re-analyse and reassess everything, accepting nothing."
That is exactly what the McCann's and their team don't want to hear.
-
amarals book clearly breaches the mccanns right to a good name under european law
I look forward to your explanation of which law or laws he breached and how. You might like to explain, while you're at it, why the first judge, after looking at all the applicable laws, chose to find against him only on the basis that he breached the 'duty of reserve' imposed upon him by his status as a retired policeman?
Page 44
the defendant Goncalo Amaral, although retired on 1st July 2008, did not enjoy, on the following July 24, in respect of the results of the criminal investigation released on the 21st of the same month and year, a large and full freedom of expression. This freedom was conditioned by the functions he had, functions that imposed him special duties that traverse the status of retirement, including the duty of reserve.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
The inference being, of course, that had he not been bound by the duty of reserve he would have done nothing wrong. The Appeal judges rejected her opinion.
Therefore, there is no duty of reserve that can be imposed to the defendant (R) about facts that were disseminated and made public, namely of all the inquiry process.
– Being that duty of reserve nonexistent, the freedom of expression of the defendant (R) is dominant (greater) in comparison with the invoked rights of the appealed, as the verdict agreed up to the point of inserting that unusual duty of reserve.
http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-min=2016-01-01T00:00:00Z&updated-max=2017-01-01T00:00:00Z&max-results=5
Note that the judges have drawn attention to the fact that the first judge also ruled that Amaral's freedom of expression was dominant. She used the 'duty of reserve' argument to restrict his freedom of speech and thus rule for the McCanns.
-
That is exactly what the McCann's and their team don't want to hear.
The majority of sensible commentators have realised and welcomed the fact that Scotland Yard started with the bare bones of the inquiry into Madeleine's disappearance right from its genesis.
Their initial inquiries thus out of the way enabled them to progress to the next logical step which was the remit to pursue the abduction just as they would had it occurred in Britain.
Not a thing there which is not welcomed by any with Madeleine McCann's best interest at heart.
-
The majority of sensible commentators have realised and welcomed the fact that Scotland Yard started with the bare bones of the inquiry into Madeleine's disappearance right from its genesis.
Their initial inquiries thus out of the way enabled them to progress to the next logical step which was the remit to pursue the abduction just as they would had it occurred in Britain.
Not a thing there which is not welcomed by any with Madeleine McCann's best interest at heart.
In fact the majority of sensible people, that doesn't include a biased tabloid press, have noted, there is no conformation at all from SY, that they ever interviewed the McCann's or associates.
Please keep to the facts.
-
Their initial inquiries thus out of the way enabled them to progress to the next logical step which was the remit to pursue the abduction just as they would had it occurred in Britain.
By doing so they have totally failed in apprehending any one,tis a sod to work out why.
-
In fact the majority of sensible people, that doesn't include a biased tabloid press, have noted, there is no conformation at all from SY, that they ever interviewed the McCann's or associates.
Please keep to the facts.
&%+((£ Hmmmm ... now you are arguing "That is exactly what the McCann's and their team don't want to hear." didn't actually happen.
Please make your mind up.
Either Scotland Yard went back to the beginning or they did not ... you can't have both.
-
In fact the majority of sensible people, that doesn't include a biased tabloid press, have noted, there is no conformation at all from SY, that they ever interviewed the McCann's or associates.
Please keep to the facts.
the fact is SY have said the mccans are not suspects....thats a fact
-
&%+((£ Hmmmm ... now you are arguing "That is exactly what the McCann's and their team don't want to hear." didn't actually happen.
Please make your mind up.
Either Scotland Yard went back to the beginning or they did not ... you can't have both.
Going off topic it seems but any how judging by the radio interview back in April last year OG haven't a clue if the poor girl is alive or dead,some hope for a resolution.
-
&%+((£ Hmmmm ... now you are arguing "That is exactly what the McCann's and their team don't want to hear." didn't actually happen.
Please make your mind up.
Either Scotland Yard went back to the beginning or they did not ... you can't have both.
We only have sources to go by.
Including of course, Clarence Mitchell.
Now, was he sacked or not, by the McCann's ?
-
the fact is SY have said the mccans are not suspects....thats a fact
right now, the truth is, you have no idea what SY are thinking, as we have had no direct comment from them for some time.
-
If they do find evidence then the Portuguese will have no choice but to assist them
Hogan Howe April 2015 "essentially its a Portuguese enquiry" meaning the OG are doing the assisting.
-
Going off topic it seems but any how judging by the radio interview back in April last year OG haven't a clue if the poor girl is alive or dead,some hope for a resolution.
"No running commentary" on an open, active case. Normal in policing.
What I find stunning is your apparent relish for failure in Madeleine's case which, in my opinion, you choose to reveal in your post.
-
"No running commentary" on an open, active case. Normal in policing.
What I find stunning is your apparent relish for failure in Madeleine's case which, in my opinion, you choose to reveal in your post.
You can only find evidence, if it exists Brietta.
Now if nothing tangible has been found for abduction, then SY are sailing in the wind, if that is their remit.
-
"No running commentary" on an open, active case. Normal in policing.
What I find stunning is your apparent relish for failure in Madeleine's case which, in my opinion, you choose to reveal in your post.
I have no relish for any thing,what I do criticize is the OG which being funded by the home office which in turn is funded by the likes of myself a fully paid up member of the tax paying fraternity in the uk with out seemingly having a clue on to what has happened to Madeleine.The failure to understand that is in my opinion in your post.
Hogan Howe April 2016:"Its a terrible case,a child went missing every one wants to know if she is a live or sadly if she is dead"
Words attributed to one DCS Duthie April 2016:"The police chief admitted detectives did not have a “full understanding” of what happened to Madeleine or why she was taken but added: “That is why the work continues. “
-
right now, the truth is, you have no idea what SY are thinking, as we have had no direct comment from them for some time.
im stating a fact....SY said the mccanns are not suspects...we have heard nothing else to contradict this
-
im stating a fact....SY said the mccanns are not suspects...we have heard nothing else to contradict this
Crime undetermined dave.
They are the last known people to see her alive.
-
The McCanns might be innocent now but not then (when Amaral wrote his book).
-
Crime undetermined dave.
They are the last known people to see her alive.
sy said teh mccanns were not suspects and have said nothing since....
-
sy said teh mccanns were not suspects and have said nothing since....
Predictable mantra
-
Neither do I and I don't appreciate being accused of it either, so please desist. I'm pleased you're not obsessed with my thoughts and look forward to seeing less analysis of them in the future.
Put it this way - if I claimed that I really wasn't that bothered which way the Met investigation went - abduction or parental involvement - would you raise an eyebrow, or take my word for it?? I don't know where you get the idea that challenging your posts = obsessing / analysing your thoughts. It's called having a discussion. If you find engaging with me so uncomfortable I suggest you put me on ignore.
-
It must be very annoying that it was ruled to be within his rights to say what he said. You and the McCanns need to accept that sometimes you will read, see or hear things you don't like.
LOL - as will you (see above).
-
Put it this way - if I claimed that I really wasn't that bothered which way the Met investigation went - abduction or parental involvement - would you raise an eyebrow, or take my word for it?? I don't know where you get the idea that challenging your posts = obsessing / analysing your thoughts. It's called having a discussion. If you find engaging with me so uncomfortable I suggest you put me on ignore.
I would just like to see a conclusion.....if it turned out the mccanns were involved Id be surprised but it would not really be of any importance to me
-
I would just like to see a conclusion.....if it turned out the mccanns were involved Id be surprised but it would not really be of any importance to me
For probably the first and last time, I nearly agree with you 8((()*/ @)(++(*
-
For probably the first and last time, I nearly agree with you 8((()*/ @)(++(*
Great!