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 March 13, 2017, 12:39:57 AM
-
FULL ENGLISH TRANSLATION - Maddie McCann The Mystery Gonçalo Amaral - CMTV April 23rd 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FKsKD78Qsc&t=18s
I'm watching this video featuring GA and then later it goes into his version of events which have marked differences to what I understood happened. Can we clarify the situation please?
361
-
FULL ENGLISH TRANSLATION - Maddie McCann O Mistério Gonçalo Amaral - CMTV April 23rd 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FKsKD78Qsc&t=18s
I'm watching this video featuring GA and then later it goes into his version of events which have marked differences to what I understood happened. Can we clarify the situation please?
An interesting interview Rob. Which version of events are you referring to?
-
An interesting interview Rob. Which version of events are you referring to?
Hi John - could you correct the spelling mistake in the title please?
I noticed the first discrepancy when they outline the timeline and say that Russell goes back at the same time as Gerry. That was news to me.
And then about the two versions of the timeline written on the scrapbook being found at different times.
I'll have to work out how to discuss a documentary like this on the forum.
-
Hi John - could you correct the spelling mistake in the title please?
I noticed the first discrepancy when they outline the timeline and say that Russell goes back at the same time as Gerry. That was news to me.
And then about the two versions of the timeline written on the scrapbook being found at different times.
I'll have to work out how to discuss a documentary like this on the forum.
Absolutely astounding "interview".
One thing is certain though ... Goncalo Amaral will not sue Kate and Gerry McCann. He is aware that to do so would entail taking action against them in a British Court where any case brought would be subject to proper scrutiny.
He will not do that.
-
Absolutely astounding "interview".
One thing is certain though ... Goncalo Amaral will not sue Kate and Gerry McCann. He is aware that to do so would entail taking action against them in a British Court where any case brought would be subject to proper scrutiny.
He will not do that.
There won't be any point because they won't have two halfpennies to rub together when they've paid their debts.
-
There won't be any point because they won't have two halfpennies to rub together when they've paid their debts.
He sounded determined to publish or at least sell his books in the UK.
I listened to the whole interview and tried reading the subtitles in time. Bit difficult for a slow reader like me, but I'll have another go later, but did I hear one bit correctly (near the end) where they agreed that Amaral theory wasn't right but never the less he had the right to publish his theory.
-
There won't be any point because they won't have two halfpennies to rub together when they've paid their debts.
How little you understand
-
How little you understand
Help us out and share your understanding then please.
-
How little you understand
If you know different out with it; don't be shy!
-
There won't be any point because they won't have two halfpennies to rub together when they've paid their debts.
Even if a 'No win No fee' arrangement is made?
Have just watched the interview. What happened to the 'uncomfortable' questions that Amaral was going to be asked?
The programme couldn't have been more biased if it tried IMO. The anchor-man was no Jeremy Paxman - that's for sure.
No wonder the Portuguese think it was the parents wotdunnit - if that's an example of a balanced 'analysis' of the events.
Very depressing.
-
Even if a 'No win No fee' arrangement is made?
Have just watched the interview. What happened to the 'uncomfortable' questions that Amaral was going to be asked?
The programme couldn't have been more biased if it tried IMO. The anchor-man was no Jeremy Paxman - that's for sure.
No wonder the Portuguese think it was the parents wotdunnit - if that's an example of a balanced 'analysis' of the events.
Very depressing.
At times Amaral seemed embarrassed. He didn't get it all his own way. You get the feeling he isn't in the PJ good books.
-
At times Amaral seemed embarrassed. He didn't get it all his own way. You get the feeling he isn't in the PJ good books.
He did look embarrassed, especially when asked questions about his "theories".
-
He did look embarassed, especially when asked questions about his "theories".
And so he should - his theories are a total embarrassment.
-
At times Amaral seemed embarrassed. He didn't get it all his own way. You get the feeling he isn't in the PJ good books.
The program was recorded last year, before the Supreme Court Judgement.
Bear that in mind. 8(0(*
-
He did look embarrassed, especially when asked questions about his "theories".
I suppose he is just happy to finally get the money. Have the funds been returned to him yet? I'd take a bit of embarrassment too if I was going to get a million Euros in the end.
The program was recorded last year, before the Supreme Court Judgement.
Bear that in mind. 8(0(*
I realise that.
-
I suppose he is just happy to finally get the money. Have the funds been returned to him yet? I'd take a bit of embarrassment too if I was going to get a million Euros in the end.
I realise that.
Yes, I don't think the "thesis" needed to hang together in any sort of coherent fashion as long as there was the promise of "revealing all" and enough salacious detail to make sure the book was a bestseller, job done.
-
Yes, I don't think the "thesis" needed to hang together in any sort of coherent fashion as long as there was the promise of "revealing all" and enough salacious detail to make sure the book was a bestseller, job done.
I seem to have missed the salacious detail. Do you have a page number?
-
I seem to have missed the salacious detail. Do you have a page number?
I don't know what the page number is, but here's an excerpt. Would you describe this as salacious? Do you think it was strictly necessary to include this in his book?
"They have heard about the statement from one of his so-called childhood friends, put on file by the police department: according to him, M.... had an affirmed penchant for bestiality. He recounted his attempts at sexual relations with a cat and a dog, subsequently killed, he states, with cruelty. Moreover, he allegedly attempted to rape his 16 year-old cousin. This individual describes M.... as someone violent with behavioural problems, a sexual pervert, sadist, and misanthropist..."
-
"They have heard about the statement from one of his so-called childhood friends, put on file by the police department: according to him, M..... had an affirmed penchant for bestiality. He recounted his attempts at sexual relations with a cat and a dog, subsequently killed, he states, with cruelty. Moreover, he allegedly attempted to rape his 16 year-old cousin. This individual describes M..... as someone violent with behavioural problems, a sexual pervert, sadist, and misanthropist..."
Is this passage still int he book because to me that is unbelievably libelous
-
Is this passage still int he book because to me that is unbelievably libelous
Yes it is, he goes on to say he's "sceptical" about the allegations but nevertheless he still finds it necessary to detail them. I'm sure M..... was delighted.
-
Is this passage still int he book because to me that is unbelievably libelous
This is not libellous because it was from a statement made to the PJ by a so-called friend of R...... M...... and it was in the police files as well as in the newspapers.
-
This is not libellous because it was from a statement made to the PJ by a so-called friend of R...... M...... and it was in the police files as well as in the newspapers.
It was a published false statement that was designed to ruin his reputation. Text book libel
-
Yes it is, he goes on to say he's "sceptical" about the allegations but nevertheless he still finds it necessary to detail them. I'm sure Murat was delighted.
It helped to convince the British profilers (CEOP?) that there was a 90% probability of M..... being the guilty party.
-
Even if a 'No win No fee' arrangement is made?
Have just watched the interview. What happened to the 'uncomfortable' questions that Amaral was going to be asked?
The programme couldn't have been more biased if it tried IMO. The anchor-man was no Jeremy Paxman - that's for sure.
No wonder the Portuguese think it was the parents wotdunnit - if that's an example of a balanced 'analysis' of the events.
Very depressing.
http://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-libel-and-privacy/funding-of-legal-costs/
RTFSPS
-
Is this passage still int he book because to me that is unbelievably libelous
That passage is still in Amaral's book.
No clue about Portuguese law, but this is the position by English libel law.
Statements made in confidence to police are absolutely protected in libel. That would be true of the statement we are discussing here.
As soon as such statements escape the confines of the enquiry and become public, (to an audience outside those involved in a criminal enquiry) the statement becomes libel, and those who publish it, the libellers.
*Edited to tidy up syntax.
-
The announcer says the claims by Amaral are "truths". Are "truths" facts or can truths be parts of a thesis?
Does Amaral need evidence to claim a truth or can it simply be his suspicion?
Is a truth a person's interpretation of the facts?
-
... confront his truth with other possible truths..." https://youtu.be/-FKsKD78Qsc?t=70
The word truth is being used in a different way than I'm used to.
How does the dictionary define "truth"?
truth
noun
1. the quality or state of being true.
"he had to accept the truth of her accusation"
synonyms: veracity, truthfulness, verity, sincerity, candour, honesty, genuineness; More
that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
noun: the truth
"tell me the truth"
synonyms: the fact of the matter, what actually/really happened, the case, so; More
2. a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
plural noun: truths
"the emergence of scientific truths"
synonyms: fact, verity, certainty, certitude"
So maybe GA was using the word to mean " belief that is accepted as true" something more like the religious use of the word truth, but in that state you could not accept alternative truths, could you?
-
Can Goncalo accept alternatives to his truth? ... confront his truth with other possible truths..." https://youtu.be/-FKsKD78Qsc?t=70
-
"The court considered the facts presented in the book and DVD, were some of them, divulged by the McCanns themselves in their numerous interviews all over the world." https://youtu.be/-FKsKD78Qsc?t=354
Is that true or just a diversion?
-
It is weird isn't it to think that hiding the body of Madeleine in a coffin that was cremated the next day is a plausible hypothesis, if that is the case what was the cadaver in the rental car? Now it definitely can't be the same cadaver in both scenarios, it has to be only in one or the other place. https://youtu.be/-FKsKD78Qsc?t=1186
-
Goncalo Amaral: " I recall that before we had the official report, we had a preliminary report which indicated that the fluids found in the car rented a month after the disappearance belonged to Madeleine McCann." https://youtu.be/-FKsKD78Qsc?t=1263
Now that preliminary report is not in the file is it.
The duty of reserve is exceeded for that report is not in the public domain.
-
Goncalo Amaral: " I recall that before we had the official report, we had a preliminary report which indicated that the fluids found in the car rented a month after the disappearance belonged to Madeleine McCann." https://youtu.be/-FKsKD78Qsc?t=1263
Now that preliminary report is not in the file is it.
The duty of reserve is exceeded for that report is not in the public domain.
Rob, what Amaral refers to as the 'preliminary report' is actually an email sent by John Low to Stuart Prior, in which he explained one result (the result from the boot) and explained why a mixed result from a number of people (John Lowe wasn't able to determine exactly how many) bore some characteristics comparable with characteristics from the DNA of Madeleine
-
"To deepen the mystery further, Fiona Payne attests she accompanied her husband to their friends apartment and the couple, both Kate and Gerry, were at home." https://youtu.be/-FKsKD78Qsc?t=1530
I have only seen this discrepancy being discussed infrequently. Is this timeline being broadcast approved by Goncalo or was it researched by the commentator?
-
Any Link including reporting of The Gaspar Statements will be removed.
-
Any Link including reporting of The Gaspar Statements will be removed.
Fortunately they don't come up in this interview.
-
Any Link including reporting of The Gaspar Statements will be removed.
There is an email in the PJ files from DC 1756 Mike MARSHALL to Ricardo Paiva. It discusses early evening on 3rd May, and Marshall reports that Fiona Payne;
"states that she went to the McCann apartment, around 19H00, on the 3rd of May, together with Kate. She states afterwards that, 10 minutes later, the husband arrived; it is not clear which husband she refers to."
-
There is an email in the PJ files from DC 1756 Mike MARSHALL to Ricardo Paiva. It discusses early evening on 3rd May, and Marshall reports that Fiona Payne;
"states that she went to the McCann apartment, around 19H00, on the 3rd of May, together with Kate. She states afterwards that, 10 minutes later, the husband arrived; it is not clear which husband she refers to."
It would appear that the Paynes gave statements or filled in questionnaires we are not privy to.
-
It would appear that the Paynes gave statements or filled in questionnaires we are not privy to.
As did others;
House-to-house questionnaires
https://leics.police.uk/media/uploads/library/file/op-task-publication-strategy.pdf
-
There is an email in the PJ files from DC 1756 Mike MARSHALL to Ricardo Paiva. It discusses early evening on 3rd May, and Marshall reports that Fiona Payne;
"states that she went to the McCann apartment, around 19H00, on the 3rd of May, together with Kate. She states afterwards that, 10 minutes later, the husband arrived; it is not clear which husband she refers to."
I saw this statement "I examined once again the declarations of Fiona Payne. In her depositions, she states that she went to the McCann apartment, around 19H00, on the 3rd of May, together with Kate. She states afterwards that, 10 minutes later, the husband arrived; it is not clear which husband she refers to." It was from Mike Marshall.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TRANSLATIONS.htm
-
I saw this statement "I examined once again the declarations of Fiona Payne. In her depositions, she states that she went to the McCann apartment, around 19H00, on the 3rd of May, together with Kate. She states afterwards that, 10 minutes later, the husband arrived; it is not clear which husband she refers to." It was from Mike Marshall.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TRANSLATIONS.htm
So the statement from the interview says something quite different from the email from Mike Marshall.
""To deepen the mystery further, Fiona Payne attests she accompanied her husband to their friends apartment and the couple, both Kate and Gerry, were at home." https://youtu.be/-FKsKD78Qsc?t=1530
Mike says Kate and Fiona were together rather than Fiona and her husband.
-
So the statement from the interview says something quite different from the email from Mike Marshall.
""To deepen the mystery further, Fiona Payne attests she accompanied her husband to their friends apartment and the couple, both Kate and Gerry, were at home." https://youtu.be/-FKsKD78Qsc?t=1530
Mike says Kate and Fiona were together rather than Fiona and her husband.
They say the same, but differ from the statement made in the TV show.
-
Any Link including reporting of The Gaspar Statements will be removed.
...and why would that be. They made a statement to the police, the police files reveal what was said.
-
I found the interview to be very interesting. This was before SC RULING. It really is incredible that many Portuguese feel aggrieved that the parents were let off lightly by not being arrested and charged with abandonment or something. Also the same is felt here by many , they(McCs) just walked right out of a really nasty situation and went on the defencive as many of their supporters continue to do.
oh aw they made a mistake?
-
They say the same, but differ from the statement made in the TV show.
That is what I meant. Mike differs from the documentary which is where the quote comes from.
-
...and why would that be. They made a statement to the police, the police files reveal what was said.
It is not the same case, and shows the mischief the Portuguese were trying to cause when they released documents like that into the public arena but kept many other documents completely secret. It is a complete conspiracy to cause trouble IMO.
-
I found the interview to be very interesting. This was before SC RULING. It really is incredible that many Portuguese feel aggrieved that the parents were let off lightly by not being arrested and charged with abandonment or something. Also the same is felt here by many , they(McCs) just walked right out of a really nasty situation and went on the defencive as many of their supporters continue to do.
oh aw they made a mistake?
But didn't the documentary also say it wasn't only the McCanns who did this to their kids. They would have had to charge all 4 families with the same crime, something that was fairly common practice at the tourist resort according to Gerry.
-
Rob, what Amaral refers to as the 'preliminary report' is actually an email sent by John Low to Stuart Prior, in which he explained one result (the result from the boot) and explained why a mixed result from a number of people (John Lowe wasn't able to determine exactly how many) bore some characteristics comparable with characteristics from the DNA of Madeleine
I think it may have come from here...from amarals tv documentary....
Duarte Levy
Journalist
30.32 – For the ‘Times’, we – I say ‘we’ because I worked with Paulo Reis and David Brown – the first article that we wrote was about the blood traces that had been found on the apartment’s wall, and we published that the blood was not Madeleine’s. It was an article that raised some problems, in terms of the FSS’s organisation, but that didn’t prevent us from accessing other preliminary and final reports. At a given time, we had access to a report that was signed by more than ten FSS professionals, which stated the existence of a correspondence of 17 out of 19 alleles in the case of Madeleine McCann. To us, there was more than enough data to state that this was Madeleine’s blood.
-
Rob, what Amaral refers to as the 'preliminary report' is actually an email sent by John Low to Stuart Prior, in which he explained one result (the result from the boot) and explained why a mixed result from a number of people (John Lowe wasn't able to determine exactly how many) bore some characteristics comparable with characteristics from the DNA of Madeleine
Sorry I missed your post earlier. So it is in the file, but it doesn't read like what Amaral made out. I'll check it out later thanks.
-
I think it may have come from here...from amarals tv documentary....
Duarte Levy
Journalist
30.32 – For the ‘Times’, we – I say ‘we’ because I worked with Paulo Reis and David Brown – the first article that we wrote was about the blood traces that had been found on the apartment’s wall, and we published that the blood was not Madeleine’s. It was an article that raised some problems, in terms of the FSS’s organisation, but that didn’t prevent us from accessing other preliminary and final reports. At a given time, we had access to a report that was signed by more than ten FSS professionals, which stated the existence of a correspondence of 17 out of 19 alleles in the case of Madeleine McCann. To us, there was more than enough data to state that this was Madeleine’s blood.
Interesting it has gone up to 17 out of 19 now from the report 15 out of 19 alleles. The thing is it it was clearly a mixed sample with 3 -5 peoples DNA all mixed.
-
It is not the same case, and shows the mischief the Portuguese were trying to cause when they released documents like that into the public arena but kept many other documents completely secret. It is a complete conspiracy to cause trouble IMO.
With all due respects, rubbish. There are laws in Portugal re what is released into the public domain and what is not. They followed the law.
-
With all due respects, rubbish. There are laws in Portugal re what is released into the public domain and what is not. They followed the law.
Can you show me that law and how it relates to an archived case please?
-
Can you show me that law and how it relates to an archived case please?
I believe the archiving report covers what could and could not be released. However you have impugned the Portuguese authorities with "shows the mischief the Portuguese were trying to cause" so it is up to you to provide evidence supporting this nonsense.
-
I believe the archiving report covers what could and could not be released. However you have impugned the Portuguese authorities with "shows the mischief the Portuguese were trying to cause" so it is up to you to provide evidence supporting this nonsense.
I would say criticising teh McCanns for not demonstrating their innocence is a good example
-
I would say criticising teh McCanns for not demonstrating their innocence is a good example
I take it you mean a reconstruction was not possible because the T9 refused?
-
But didn't the documentary also say it wasn't only the McCanns who did this to their kids. They would have had to charge all 4 families with the same crime, something that was fairly common practice at the tourist resort according to Gerry.
I think you'll struggle to find a cite showing Gerry saying that.
-
I take it you mean a reconstruction was not possible because the T9 refused?
Here's the perfect opportunity for you to explain to us lesser mortals how a reconstruction would have demonstrated the McCanns' innocence. Over to you.
-
I take it you mean a reconstruction was not possible because the T9 refused?
Their words were "failed to demonstrate their innocence"....which is a disgrace...its up to the police to find evidence of guilt .....the mccanns could not refuse to attend a reconstruction....they were not asked to....but I doubt you are aware of that
-
I believe the archiving report covers what could and could not be released. However you have impugned the Portuguese authorities with "shows the mischief the Portuguese were trying to cause" so it is up to you to provide evidence supporting this nonsense.
That would be a great topic for a new thread. It is definitely "a truth" when truth is used as a word as did GA (like it doesn't mean it is a fact but an interpretation of the facts and that truth can still be open to alternatives.
So you reckon in the archiving report it will explain as to why the Gaspar statements were released yet others were retained.
-
I take it you mean a reconstruction was not possible because the T9 refused?
Were all of the T9 asked to attend?
-
I think you'll struggle to find a cite showing Gerry saying that.
What were the words "hundreds of letters of support for those who had or would do the same" I've heard it many times.
-
Their words were "failed to demonstrate their innocence"....which is a disgrace...its up to the police to find evidence of guilt .....the mccanns could not refuse to attend a reconstruction....they were not asked to....but I doubt you are aware of that
Are you certain about that? I had a feeling not all of the T9 had been asked to attend and Jez Wilkins was asked and he was outside of the T9. So quite clearly the reconstruction wasn't based on the T9 group but on certain witnesses. I had always thought the McCanns were asked, but I could be wrong.
-
Are you certain about that? I had a feeling not all of the T9 had been asked to attend and Jez Wilkins was asked and he was outside of the T9. So quite clearly the reconstruction wasn't based on the T9 group but on certain witnesses. I had always thought the McCanns were asked, but I could be wrong.
The reconstruction never got off the ground because the pj were unable to persuade others to come.....
as far as I am aware the mccanns were never asked....they didnt need to be asked....they would have been ordered
-
The reconstruction never got off the ground because the pj were unable to persuade others to come.....
as far as I am aware the mccanns were never asked....they didnt need to be asked....they would have been ordered
There is a file with all the emails asking them to attend I was going to base the numbers on that. Trouble with this case it is hard to remember where everything is all the time. G-unit seems to have an indexing system so will be able to help but we need our own.
The McCanns were allowed to go back to England while they were still arguidos so yes it would have been a condition that they return if requested or ordered as you put it.
-
Here's the perfect opportunity for you to explain to us lesser mortals how a reconstruction would have demonstrated the McCanns' innocence. Over to you.
I very much doubt a reconstruction would have demonstrated the McCanns innocence. Over to you.
-
I very much doubt a reconstruction would have demonstrated the McCanns innocence. Over to you.
then it was rather stupid of the archiving report to state that it could
-
With all due respects, rubbish. There are laws in Portugal re what is released into the public domain and what is not. They followed the law.
Is the file with the Gaspar letters attached the only PJ file that is banned from this forum's website? If it was lawful to publish it why is it banned here?
-
Is the file with the Gaspar letters attached the only PJ file that is banned from this forum's website? If it was lawful to publish it why is it banned here?
Debate about the statements is not welcome for the simple reason that the mods do not wish to superglue themselves to the screen to remove libel 24 hours per day.
Feel free to post links to the statements.
But don't try to discuss aka wander down libel lane.
-
Debate about the statements is not welcome for the simple reason that the mods do not wish to superglue themselves to the screen to remove libel 24 hours per day.
Feel free to post links to the statements.
But don't try to discuss aka wander down libel lane.
Eleanor made it clear the links aren't allowed. Safe than sorry possibly.
-
I very much doubt a reconstruction would have demonstrated the McCanns innocence. Over to you.
Then why do the Portuguese authorities and Sc Judges keep harping on about it? As Davel said earlier it's a good example of their mischief-making.
-
Then why do the Portuguese authorities and Sc Judges keep harping on about it? As Davel said earlier it's a good example of their mischief-making.
The idea that SC judges mischief-make in the McCann case is beyond ludicrous.
-
The idea that SC judges mischief-make in the McCann case is beyond ludicrous.
Mischief making might make it sound a bit frivolous but I did see it written somewhere it was important to always make it appear that the Portuguese police are not discredited in the public eye. To have the population of Portugal respecting the police is an incredibly valuable asset and to think that two potentially guilty English perpetrators could take a former inspector of the PJ to court and win would not be a good look. So any bluff saying they are not proven innocent partly because they didn't have the reconstruction, which as far as I can see was never blocked by the McCanns, gives them what appears to the general population credence to say their appeal is over ruled.
-
I believe the archiving report covers what could and could not be released. However you have impugned the Portuguese authorities with "shows the mischief the Portuguese were trying to cause" so it is up to you to provide evidence supporting this nonsense.
I didn't find anything in the archiving report about the release of the file.
On every document is the statement "This information belongs to the Ministério Público in Portimão, Portugal. It was released to the public on 4 August 2008 in accordance with Portuguese Law".
So what is this law?
"Later the attorney general's office in Portugal, where secrecy laws prevent information about ongoing cases being released, issued a rare statement to clarify the position. The office confirmed the "final report" had been prepared by the police and sent to the public prosecutor. The statement said the report would be considered carefully, adding: "The prosecutor's office will proceed with the global analysis and evaluation of the whole case (which contains dozens of files) in order to determine whether or not the necessary and sufficient conditions have been met allowing for the case's closure."
The statement concluded by saying that the case remained "under judicial secrecy until mid-August"."
So it seems a very rare event that requires special authorisation. It seems initially that the case had to be closed (with the potential to be reopened on request). https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jul/02/madeleinemccann.ukcrime
From the same article "Henrique Machado, of the Portuguese newspaper Correio da Manhã, which reported that the case was being closed, told the Guardian: "This is not surprising. With no evidence to go on this was only expected." He said many people in Portugal felt the police were overwhelmed by the frenzy surrounding the case.
"In Portugal there is a feeling this was always a difficult case from the start which was not helped by the media coverage."
The latest developments came only hours after police officer Gonçalo Amaral, who was removed from the case in October, retired. He is believed to be writing a book on the case."
The timing of the writing of the book, the release of the file, and retirement seem more than coincidental.
A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
came out on the 10th SEP 2007.
-
The idea that SC judges mischief-make in the McCann case is beyond ludicrous.
The decision of the SC is beyond ludicrous when we take into account what amaral has said
But as you showed last week you are not aware of quite a lot of his accusations
-
Getting a bit more idea why the file was released:
"Their Portuguese lawyer Carlos Pinto de Abreu was lodging an application for access to the files today and they are expected to be released by the end of the week.
The McCanns will then have 20 days to appeal against the Portuguese attorney general's decision to drop the case, although this is unlikely.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036698/Police-report-Madeleines-disappearance-leaked-online-McCanns-threaten-sue-police-bungled-probe.html#ixzz4bNLh7Edx"
-
The idea that SC judges mischief-make in the McCann case is beyond ludicrous.
Another example of clear mischief making is that the McCanns were not charged because there was not enough evidence against them when in realliy there is no real evidence that implicates them
An accusation you have repeated
If there is evidence please state it
Otherwise stick to the facts
-
Another example of clear mischief making is that the McCanns were not charged because there was not enough evidence against them when in realliy there is no real evidence that implicates them
An accusation you have repeated
If there is evidence please state it
Otherwise stick to the facts
The nearest to evidence was that Kate left the other two kids alone when she went to raise the alarm. OK it is a decision one would have to make - maybe she should have rung reception instead?
-
The nearest to evidence was that Kate left the other two kids alone when she went to raise the alarm. OK it is a decision one would have to make - maybe she should have rung reception instead?
If that is the best you can come up with you prove my point
-
The nearest to evidence was that Kate left the other two kids alone when she went to raise the alarm. OK it is a decision one would have to make - maybe she should have rung reception instead?
Or scream and shout outside the apartment.
After all, we have been constantly told, the rest of the group were very close. 8)-)))
-
Or scream and shout outside the apartment.
After all, we have been constantly told, the rest of the group were very close. 8)-)))
No you wouldn't hear her over their laughter.
-
No you wouldn't hear her over their laughter.
How do you know they were laughing ?
..and if they were therefore clearly distracted, what does that say about their childcare skills ?
-
The decision of the SC is beyond ludicrous when we take into account what amaral has said
But as you showed last week you are not aware of quite a lot of his accusations
You seem to be making the same complaint as Duarte when she commented on Amaral's appeal win;
This decision was an appreciation of the law and not the facts.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3547951/Portuguese-detective-WINS-appeal-against-libel-defeat-Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-NOT-pay-500-000-damages.html#ixzz4bNYZRGcK
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
As the first instance judgement was based on legal arguments it follows that the appeal judges examined and ruled on those arguments. It was, after all, the judgement they were looking at.
-
How do you know they were laughing ?
..and if they were therefore clearly distracted, what does that say about their childcare skills ?
They were friends at the table having fun drinking and I'd imagine laughing, talking, joking etc.
I don't think they were sitting there quietly just in case one of the kids whimpered.
-
The idea that SC judges mischief-make in the McCann case is beyond ludicrous.
You very much doubt a reconstruction would have helped prove the McCanns' innocence, the SC seem to disagree with your opinion, how do you account for this discrepancy?
-
They were friends at the table having fun drinking and I'd imagine laughing, talking, joking etc.
I don't think they were sitting there quietly just in case one of the kids whimpered.
So you agree Rob, they weren't looking after their children.
-
So you agree Rob, they weren't looking after their children.
When they checked their kids they were serious but when they weren't, they partied. I don't actually see anything wrong with that.
-
When they checked their kids they were serious but when they weren't, they partied. I don't actually see anything wrong with that.
Then you do have a problem.
-
Then you do have a problem.
So tell me what would you have done?
-
So tell me what would you have done?
Not leave them alone by themselves, whilst away drinking and eating.
Why didn't they eat and drink in the apartment ?
After all, it was a 'family holiday'.
-
Not leave them alone by themselves, whilst away drinking and eating.
Why didn't they eat and drink in the apartment ?
After all, it was a 'family holiday'.
What about your friends? it was mostly to have time with your colleagues wasn't it. They could have done what you suggest back home.
-
What about your friends? it was mostly to have time with your colleagues wasn't it. They could have done what you suggest back home.
Well, one family I know did admit to leaving their son in a hotel room whilst they ate downstairs. It was locked, but he got out (a 4 year old by the way). Hotel staff found him wandering...........
-
Well, one family I know did admit to leaving their son in a hotel room whilst they ate downstairs. It was locked, but he got out (a 4 year old by the way). Hotel staff found him wandering...........
Just what often happened at the Ocean Club (Charlotte Pennington) She said we always find the child, so even in the short time she worked there there were multiple missing children.
-
Just what often happened at the Ocean Club (Charlotte Pennington)
From unlocked apartments ?
,or were they locked in the daytime, like the McCann's was ?
-
From unlocked apartments ?
,or were they locked in the daytime, like the McCann's was ?
She doesn't say exactly https://youtu.be/InJLmyakzeE?t=520
-
What about your friends? it was mostly to have time with your colleagues wasn't it. They could have done what you suggest back home.
They had all day to chat with their friends while the children were being looked after, but the only time they got together it seemed to be in passing.
-
They had all day to chat with their friends while the children were being looked after, but the only time they got together it seemed to be in passing.
Except for the Thursday, where the group minus the McCanns got together for an afternoon at the beach.
I find it interesting that Kate appeared to know nothing about this - you'd have thought her bestest friend would have mentioned it.
I do wonder about the group dynamics as after the first day, the McCanns always lunched alone. None of the others seemed to lunch alone, even if they weren't all together each time.
-
She doesn't say exactly https://youtu.be/InJLmyakzeE?t=520
She may have been involved in lost child searches elsewhere, but not there. She arrived on the same day as the T9.
Your assumption that; "in the short time she worked there there were multiple missing children." is incorrect, she'd
been there for 6 days!
-
Just what often happened at the Ocean Club (Charlotte Pennington) She said we always find the child, so even in the short time she worked there there were multiple missing children.
Not to cast aspersions on Ms Pennington, but ... She started work on 28 April. No one else mentions multiple instances of missing children in the 5 days leading up to Madeleine's disappearance.
-
Except for the Thursday, where the group minus the McCanns got together for an afternoon at the beach.
I find it interesting that Kate appeared to know nothing about this - you'd have thought her bestest friend would have mentioned it.
I do wonder about the group dynamics as after the first day, the McCanns always lunched alone. None of the others seemed to lunch alone, even if they weren't all together each time.
As you say, understanding how the group interacted would give the police a better insight into motivations.
-
As you say, understanding how the group interacted would give the police a better insight into motivations.
Motivations for what?
-
She may have been involved in lost child searches elsewhere, but not there. She arrived on the same day as the T9.
Your assumption that; "in the short time she worked there there were multiple missing children." is incorrect, she'd
been there for 6 days!
I would love her to say what she meant, for she definitely said it.
-
I would love her to say what she meant, for she definitely said it.
At what time on the recording? I never heard it.
-
At what time on the recording? I never heard it.
Make sure your speakers are going for it starts at Charlotte speaking https://youtu.be/InJLmyakzeE?t=520
Maybe 10 -20 seconds later.
-
Make sure your speakers are going for it starts at Charlotte speaking https://youtu.be/InJLmyakzeE?t=520
Maybe 10 -20 seconds later.
This is what she said. No mention of multiple missing children;
"we're not finding her. This has never happened. We've always found the child"
-
This is what she said. No mention of multiple missing children;
"we're not finding her. This has never happened. We've always found the child"
I read that as in the past they have always found the child, meaning that there is plenty of past experience to know that their missing child procedure works. Multiple missing children is implied. OK she doesn't say if they were all her own experience or whether she was talking on behalf of Ocean Club. The way it is said makes it sound like personal experience. Was that on another season?
-
I read that as in the past they have always found the child, meaning that there is plenty of past experience to know that their missing child procedure works. Multiple missing children is implied. OK she doesn't say if they were all her own experience or whether she was talking on behalf of Ocean Club. The way it is said makes it sound like personal experience. Was that on another season?
It's always best to stick to what they actually say because the bits added on are your opinion. Charlotte was a mine of information it seems. No twins in the room before the police arrived? I thought it was Emma Knight who got a description of the clothes from Fiona? Very interesting;
She had worked for Mark Warner on two previous occasions....................We told the head of department what had happened and she took us straight to the apartment........"There were no children in the room. The twins had been taken out already, I think by one of the McCanns' friends........The nanny was one of three staff who steered Mrs McCann to the nearby reception area, where they asked her to describe what Madeleine was wearing.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483715/Kate-McCann-DID-scream-Theyve-taken-claims-new-nanny-witness.html#ixzz4bQZJrwgD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
-
It's always best to stick to what they actually say because the bits added on are your opinion. Charlotte was a mine of information it seems. No twins in the room before the police arrived? I thought it was Emma Knight who got a description of the clothes from Fiona? Very interesting;
She had worked for Mark Warner on two previous occasions....................We told the head of department what had happened and she took us straight to the apartment........"There were no children in the room. The twins had been taken out already, I think by one of the McCanns' friends........The nanny was one of three staff who steered Mrs McCann to the nearby reception area, where they asked her to describe what Madeleine was wearing.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483715/Kate-McCann-DID-scream-Theyve-taken-claims-new-nanny-witness.html#ixzz4bQZJrwgD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
You might do well to take your own advice.
-
You might do well to take your own advice.
I beg your pardon? Please provide more information so I can reply.
-
I beg your pardon? Please provide more information so I can reply.
Read your own post.
-
Read your own post.
I did, it's fine. 8**8:/:
-
It's always best to stick to what they actually say because the bits added on are your opinion. Charlotte was a mine of information it seems. No twins in the room before the police arrived? I thought it was Emma Knight who got a description of the clothes from Fiona? Very interesting;
She had worked for Mark Warner on two previous occasions....................We told the head of department what had happened and she took us straight to the apartment........"There were no children in the room. The twins had been taken out already, I think by one of the McCanns' friends........The nanny was one of three staff who steered Mrs McCann to the nearby reception area, where they asked her to describe what Madeleine was wearing.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483715/Kate-McCann-DID-scream-Theyve-taken-claims-new-nanny-witness.html#ixzz4bQZJrwgD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
She doesn't say which room she was aware that the twins were or were not in. I'm thinking she is a bit confused as to which room she was looking at.
But having worked there for two years previously there could have been multiple lost children that all had been found until the McCann incident.
-
Back to the video https://youtu.be/-FKsKD78Qsc?t=1544: (This bit seems to be extraneous to the public file!) "One thing seems certain; the (McCann's) first floor neighbour, Pamela Fenn, saw David P.ayne, around 19:00 hours, on the McCann's balcony."
I checked the statement by Mrs Fenn and there is nothing that confirms this allegation http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm.
-
This next bit was what prompted me to start the thread https://youtu.be/-FKsKD78Qsc?t=1691. Was the second timeline found days later?
" Days later, the police find among Kate's papers a manuscript (draft) with the hours of the rounds (checking) written on it -"
Was one produced by Kate and the other Russell?
Video: "except, this differed from the one her friend Russell gave to the PJ."
Next subtitle: "There are lapses in the memory of the McCann's friends (account of events) and (worse) contradictory versions of the same (alleged events)."
Next: "The police never knew with rigour (with any degree of certainty) the steps (movements) of each of them during that dinner."
Next: "There are only four moments that coincide (and these are) the only ones corroborated by witnesses."
Next which is the one I'd say Goncalo has completely wrong!: "At 21:00 hours, two men get up from the table - one is Russell O'Brien, and the other Gerry McCann."
My research of the timeline it was Matt Oldfield that went back before Gerry.
Next: "They set of to the apartments (ostensibly) to check on their children. In order to reach the apartment,...."
"...Gerry has to leave the Ocean Club and walk 20 meters of a dimly lit street to reach the small access gate to the apartment."
Next: "(after checking on the children and) on the way back to his dinner Gerry encounters Jeremy Wilkins .....
Next [miss out some boring stuff]: "... The two ...chat for a while. The street is deserted."
Will Goncalo admit Jane goes past them????
Next: "(Meanwhile) Jane Tanner the partner of Russell O'Brien worries about his abscence from the (dinner) table and gets up (to look for him). "
That sounds like completely made up by GA!
Next: "Later she assures the police that between 21 and 21:05 hours she saw a stranger carrying a child in his arms .....[sick of typing]"
Next: "and on which at that very same time, Gerry stood chatting with Jeremy. (But) neither Gerry or Jeremy saw anyone passing by nor even for that matter noticed Jane Tanner's presence (walking past them)."
Next: " Around 21:30 hours Gerry returns to the restaurant table. Russell had not yet arrived back (from his check)."
Next: "He finally returns close to 22 hours - nearly half an hour after Gerry."
I just can't believe that Goncalo is not aware of the documented movements of the T9. It has been an eye opener to read that he doesn't even know what happened that night.
"
-
This next bit was what prompted me to start the thread https://youtu.be/-FKsKD78Qsc?t=1691. Was the second timeline found days later?
" Days later, the police find among Kate's papers a manuscript (draft) with the hours of the rounds (checking) written on it -"
Was one produced by Kate and the other Russell?
Video: "except, this differed from the one her friend Russell gave to the PJ."
Next subtitle: "There are lapses in the memory of the McCann's friends (account of events) and (worse) contradictory versions of the same (alleged events)."
Next: "The police never knew with rigour (with any degree of certainty) the steps (movements) of each of them during that dinner."
Next: "There are only four moments that coincide (and these are) the only ones corroborated by witnesses."
Next which is the one I'd say Goncalo has completely wrong!: "At 21:00 hours, two men get up from the table - one is Russell O'Brien, and the other Gerry McCann."
My research of the timeline it was Matt Oldfield that went back before Gerry.
Next: "They set of to the apartments (ostensibly) to check on their children. In order to reach the apartment,...."
"...Gerry has to leave the Ocean Club and walk 20 meters of a dimly lit street to reach the small access gate to the apartment."
Next: "(after checking on the children and) on the way back to his dinner Gerry encounters Jeremy Wilkins .....
Next [miss out some boring stuff]: "... The two ...chat for a while. The street is deserted."
Will Goncalo admit Jane goes past them????
Next: "(Meanwhile) Jane Tanner the partner of Russell O'Brien worries about his abscence from the (dinner) table and gets up (to look for him). "
That sounds like completely made up by GA!
Next: "Later she assures the police that between 21 and 21:05 hours she saw a stranger carrying a child in his arms .....[sick of typing]"
Next: "and on which at that very same time, Gerry stood chatting with Jeremy. (But) neither Gerry or Jeremy saw anyone passing by nor even for that matter noticed Jane Tanner's presence (walking past them)."
Next: " Around 21:30 hours Gerry returns to the restaurant table. Russell had not yet arrived back (from his check)."
Next: "He finally returns close to 22 hours - nearly half an hour after Gerry."
I just can't believe that Goncalo is not aware of the documented movements of the T9. It has been an eye opener to read that he doesn't even know what happened that night.
"
He wasn't the only one;
Thus, at around 9pm, her husband went to the apartment to make sure the twins, as well as Madeleine, were OK, then he went back to the restaurant. Her husband said that the children were doing well and that he had bumped into the person with whom he had played tennis, a person who has two children. At the same time, one of the group of friends, Russell, went to see his children, without checking on the interviewee's children.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
-
He wasn't the only one;
Thus, at around 9pm, her husband went to the apartment to make sure the twins, as well as Madeleine, were OK, then he went back to the restaurant. Her husband said that the children were doing well and that he had bumped into the person with whom he had played tennis, a person who has two children. At the same time, one of the group of friends, Russell, went to see his children, without checking on the interviewee's children.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
Are you trying to say that Goncalo treated Kate's one and only statement as gospel?
It is clear from the entire group Russell and Matt went together not Russell and Gerry. Or do you agree with Goncalo?
-
Are you trying to say that Goncalo treated Kate's one and only statement as gospel?
It is clear from the entire group Russell and Matt went together not Russell and Gerry. Or do you agree with Goncalo?
You appear to take the McCann's words as gospel.
-
Thanks for the correction: it should have been "Ye of little faith, prove that to me or eat your words".
My timeline was based on looking at all the Tapas 9 statements not just Kate's one. Kate's statement is clearly a translation error. The words "same time" is referring to Matt's visit in the next sentence.
-
Are you trying to say that Goncalo treated Kate's one and only statement as gospel?
It is clear from the entire group Russell and Matt went together not Russell and Gerry. Or do you agree with Goncalo?
I'm not trying to say anything, just pointing out what Kate McCann said.
-
I'm not trying to say anything, just pointing out what Kate McCann said.
well how do account for GA getting the timeline so wrong?
Does anyone agree with me he got the timeline wrong?
-
Ye of little faith, prove that to me your eat your words.
My timeline was based on looking at all the Tapas 9 statements not just Kate's one. Kate's statement is clearly a translation error. The same time is referring to Matt's visit in the next sentence.
Looking at all the statements made on 4th May only two people mention Matthew's check at around 9pm; Matthew himself and Russell. There's no 'clearly' involved, the assertion of translation errors is based on no evidence whatsoever.
-
Looking at all the statements made on 4th May only two people mention Matthew's check at around 9pm; Matthew himself and Russell. There's no 'clearly' involved, the assertion of translation errors is based on no evidence whatsoever.
Isn't it true the Paynes also agree Matt was there up around the apartments at 9:00 PM
And Russell makes it clear he had only just arrived before the Paynes did.
-
Isn't it true the Paynes also agree Matt was there up around the apartments at 9:00 PM
And Russell makes it clear he had only just arrived before the Paynes did.
I take the view that a person's first statement is more valuable, so I'm looking at those made on 4th May. Later statements were different but they were made after a group timeline was established.
Taking the 4th May statements, none of the Paynes mention Matthew. According to Dianne and Fiona they left their apartment at 8.45pm. According to Dave they arrived at 8.55pm. If so, they couldn't have crossed paths with Matthew, could they? According to Russell he arrived at 8.45pm, followed 5 minutes later by the Payne/Webster family.
-
I take the view that a person's first statement is more valuable, so I'm looking at those made on 4th May. Later statements were different but they were made after a group timeline was established.
Taking the 4th May statements, none of the Paynes mention Matthew. According to Dianne and Fiona they left their apartment at 8.45pm. According to Dave they arrived at 8.55pm. If so, they couldn't have crossed paths with Matthew, could they? According to Russell he arrived at 8.45pm, followed 5 minutes later by the Payne/Webster family.
No wonder GA pulled his hair out!
If GA used only the statements from the 4th he would have to have Gerry using the front door rather than the patio door. Which is clearly not the case in the transcript of the interview.
-
I take the view that a person's first statement is more valuable, so I'm looking at those made on 4th May. Later statements were different but they were made after a group timeline was established.
Taking the 4th May statements, none of the Paynes mention Matthew. According to Dianne and Fiona they left their apartment at 8.45pm. According to Dave they arrived at 8.55pm. If so, they couldn't have crossed paths with Matthew, could they? According to Russell he arrived at 8.45pm, followed 5 minutes later by the Payne/Webster family.
You are quoting times as if they are completely accurate. The fact that the times given in statements are almost always preceded by the word 'around' means they are simply best guesses.
IMO it's not possible therefore to come to any firm conclusions based on the times given - because some or all of them could be wrong. Especially so IMO when there was no reason for anybody to make a point of remembering the times of mundane movements which were of no significance at all while they making them.
Also different people can have vastly differing perceptions of time and distance.
AIMHO
-
You are quoting times as if they are completely accurate. The fact that the times given in statements are almost always preceded by the word 'around' means they are simply best guesses.
IMO it's not possible therefore to come to any firm conclusions based on the times given - because some or all of them could be wrong. Especially so IMO when there was no reason for anybody to make a point of remembering the times of mundane movements which were of no significance at all while they making them.
Also different people can have vastly differing perceptions of time and distance.
AIMHO
The importance of the first statements lies partly with the times, but mainly with what people saw. Only two people said Matthew went to check at 9pm, and one of them was him. Despite bumping into him none of the Paynes remembered it; in fact Dianne categorically denied it in her next statement. It took her a year to remember seeing him, after she was told she did.
-
The importance of the first statements lies partly with the times, but mainly with what people saw. Only two people said Matthew went to check at 9pm, and one of them was him. Despite bumping into him none of the Paynes remembered it; in fact Dianne categorically denied it in her next statement. It took her a year to remember seeing him, after she was told she did.
How many additional witnesses do you require before you accept something probably happened?
-
The importance of the first statements lies partly with the times, but mainly with what people saw. Only two people said Matthew went to check at 9pm, and one of them was him. Despite bumping into him none of the Paynes remembered it; in fact Dianne categorically denied it in her next statement. It took her a year to remember seeing him, after she was told she did.
If the McCanns recovered memory like that they would have some serious accusation made against them.
-
How many additional witnesses do you require before you accept something probably happened?
Did I say it didn't happen? Or did I present the rather sparse evidence in support of it? it's still sparse in the second interviews. Of the six interviewees five now have Matthew checking. Russell still thinks it was after the Paynes arrived, as does Gerry. Only three of the six say Matthew met the Paynes. Dianne was specifically asked and categorically denied it.
-
Did I say it didn't happen? Or did I present the rather sparse evidence in support of it? it's still sparse in the second interviews. Of the six interviewees five now have Matthew checking. Russell still thinks it was after the Paynes arrived, as does Gerry. Only three of the six say Matthew met the Paynes. Dianne was specifically asked and categorically denied it.
I would not trust Dianne, so ignore her. Considering the general consensus Matthew did the check at 9:00 not Russell. That proves beyond a doubt GA did not understand the case at all.
-
Did I say it didn't happen? Or did I present the rather sparse evidence in support of it? it's still sparse in the second interviews. Of the six interviewees five now have Matthew checking. Russell still thinks it was after the Paynes arrived, as does Gerry. Only three of the six say Matthew met the Paynes. Dianne was specifically asked and categorically denied it.
Did I say you said it didn't happen? Or did I ask you how many witnesses you require before you will accept that something probably happened?
-
If we were to accept Goncalo's version of the timeline Russell has be up in his room for the entire hour from 9:00 till nearly 10:00. Now there would not be one statement of the T9 that backs that. I cannot believe how little GA knows about the case.
Did I say you said it didn't happen? Or did I ask you how many witnesses you require before you will accept that something probably happened?
It must be a total shock to the GA supporters to realise how little he knew of the case. It will take a while for them to be able to admit this. They will be in denial for a long time. It is shocking.
-
I would not trust Dianne, so ignore her. Considering the general consensus Matthew did the check at 9:00 not Russell. That proves beyond a doubt GA did not understand the case at all.
The consensus was only arrived at after discussions took place and an agreed group timeline was constructed. Before that it was merely 2:1 in favour of Matthew doing the check.
-
The consensus was only arrived at after discussions took place and an agreed group timeline was constructed. Before that it was merely 2:1 in favour of Matthew doing the check.
Even the 2:1 goes against Amaral.
-
Even the 2:1 goes against Amaral.
The first to leave was about 40/45 years old (tall, skinny, white complexion, with large [a full head of] hair of color gray) and the period of his absence was about 15 minutes, being that they had to [re-]heat his food, which had cooled;
- The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes, and that shortly after he returned, all left the table, except for an elderly person, who told him that a child had disappeared, the daughter of a member of the group, due to which he thought that the second person to leave could have been the father of the child;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm
-
The first to leave was about 40/45 years old (tall, skinny, white complexion, with large [a full head of] hair of color gray) and the period of his absence was about 15 minutes, being that they had to [re-]heat his food, which had cooled;
- The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes, and that shortly after he returned, all left the table, except for an elderly person, who told him that a child had disappeared, the daughter of a member of the group, due to which he thought that the second person to leave could have been the father of the child;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm
That would be about the most inaccurate way of working it out. So who is who in that jumble? It could be that they (Matt and Russell) left the table but didn't go and check their kids but were doing something else. I had raised that possibility once before since Matt and Russell are not aware when Gerry and Jane return to the table between 9:15 and 9:30.
The employees are aware who is away from the table but would be unaware of what the reason for that absence was.
(Thanking you for that reference, for I had asked about Matt and Russell leaving the table months ago now and no one helped.)
-
You are quoting times as if they are completely accurate. The fact that the times given in statements are almost always preceded by the word 'around' means they are simply best guesses.
IMO it's not possible therefore to come to any firm conclusions based on the times given - because some or all of them could be wrong. Especially so IMO when there was no reason for anybody to make a point of remembering the times of mundane movements which were of no significance at all while they making them.
Also different people can have vastly differing perceptions of time and distance.
AIMHO
However, these Doctors would have us believe they checked their children every 15/30 minutes, so, based on that they would be able to distinguish between 15 and 30 minutes or as has been suggested they just checked whenever... and had no set time to check their children at all. In fact it could also be suggested that they ate and drink then checked... I say checked I mean listened at doors as was their preferred secure fail safe system ...
-
However, these Doctors would have us believe they checked their children every 15/30 minutes, so, based on that they would be able to distinguish between 15 and 30 minutes or as has been suggested they just checked whenever... and had no set time to check their children at all. In fact it could also be suggested that they ate and drink then checked... I say checked I mean listened at doors as was their preferred secure fail safe system ...
What would the average person do at home? Do they check the kids every half hour. I never did that.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8007.msg389882#msg389882 is the transcript of a section of the interview which clearly shows Goncalo Amaral had no idea about what happened between 9:00 and 10:00 that night.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8007.msg389882#msg389882 is the transcript of a section of the interview which clearly shows Goncalo Amaral had no idea about what happened between 9:00 and 10:00 that night.
How would Amaral know if the interview reflected an accurate account of events ?
-
How would Amaral know if the interview reflected an accurate account of events ?
Well that is what I started the thread for. Who's timeline is it? Was it provided by Goncalo. I don't believe for a moment it was from the interviewer's study of the case.
-
Is it true that the rogatory statements were not part of the original released files?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3835.msg142689#msg142689
-
However, these Doctors would have us believe they checked their children every 15/30 minutes, so, based on that they would be able to distinguish between 15 and 30 minutes or as has been suggested they just checked whenever... and had no set time to check their children at all. In fact it could also be suggested that they ate and drink then checked... I say checked I mean listened at doors as was their preferred secure fail safe system ...
On 3rd May the checks on Madeleine were every 30 minutes. 9.05p.m. 9.30p.m. and 10.00pm (approximately.
The checks on JT's children were every 15 minutes. 9.15p.m. 9.30p.m. and 9.45p.m. (approx)
IIRC according to Amaral - in one interview - everyone at the table checked on Madeleine on 3rd May.
(If anyone can find that interview it would be appreciated - I haven't been able to find it)
-
On 3rd May the checks on Madeleine were every 30 minutes. 9.05p.m. 9.30p.m. and 10.00pm (approximately.
The checks on JT's children were every 15 minutes. 9.15p.m. 9.30p.m. and 9.45p.m. (approx)
IIRC according to Amaral - in one interview - everyone at the table checked on Madeleine on 3rd May.
(If anyone can find that interview it would be appreciated - I haven't been able to find it)
Some of the checks are verified, some aren't.
Likewise, when checks were made, were the children checked individually, or was it from a distance ?
-
On 3rd May the checks on Madeleine were every 30 minutes. 9.05p.m. 9.30p.m. and 10.00pm (approximately.
The checks on JT's children were every 15 minutes. 9.15p.m. 9.30p.m. and 9.45p.m. (approx)
IIRC according to Amaral - in one interview - everyone at the table checked on Madeleine on 3rd May.
(If anyone can find that interview it would be appreciated - I haven't been able to find it)
Were you sleeping when you wrote this bit?
"You are quoting times as if they are completely accurate. The fact that the times given in statements are almost always preceded by the word 'around' means they are simply best guesses.
IMO it's not possible therefore to come to any firm conclusions based on the times given - because some or all of them could be wrong. Especially so IMO when there was no reason for anybody to make a point of remembering the times of mundane movements which were of no significance at all while they making them.
Also different people can have vastly differing perceptions of time and distance.
AIMHO"
So which is it to be? Let us look at this in detail.
These people made a decision to leave their children alone every night so they could wine and dine BEFORE they went on holiday. Did they have a schedule at the table? did they keep a record of visits in their head. It would seem the answer to these questions would be NO.
So, from that we can safely deduce that it was a flippant, irregular listening at the door system they had in place. Which if an abductor really did take Madeleine from her bed, then the blame lies with these adults.
No amout of ifs' whens and buts is going to change that. And Amaral saying anything about the time linein an interview would have been quoting what he was told was a 'timeline'.
The most interesting thing about THE timeline was/still is... JT seeing GM and an 'abductor' at a certain time. also Kate knowing what time it was when she checked at 10...
-
Quite shocking that people on holiday should make a decision to eat.
Very obviously, anyone on holiday should starve to death ....
-
Quite shocking that people on holiday should make a decision to eat.
Very obviously, anyone on holiday should starve to death ....
Don't forget the Alcohol. Hardly essential.
Eating is.
-
Quite shocking that people on holiday should make a decision to eat.
Very obviously, anyone on holiday should starve to death ....
I don't think anyone staying at the Ocean Club that week starved. None of them except the T9 group found it necessary to leave their children home alone in order to eat either. Clever, weren't they?
-
Don't forget the Alcohol. Hardly essential.
Eating is.
Are you talking about the PJ coordinator?
I don't think anyone staying at the Ocean Club that week starved. None of them except the T9 group found it necessary to leave their children home alone in order to eat either. Clever, weren't they?
How would we know that for certain?
-
I don't think anyone staying at the Ocean Club that week starved. None of them except the T9 group found it necessary to leave their children home alone in order to eat either. Clever, weren't they?
How do you know?
-
Were you sleeping when you wrote this bit?
"You are quoting times as if they are completely accurate. The fact that the times given in statements are almost always preceded by the word 'around' means they are simply best guesses.
IMO it's not possible therefore to come to any firm conclusions based on the times given - because some or all of them could be wrong. Especially so IMO when there was no reason for anybody to make a point of remembering the times of mundane movements which were of no significance at all while they making them.
Also different people can have vastly differing perceptions of time and distance.
AIMHO"
So which is it to be? Let us look at this in detail.
These people made a decision to leave their children alone every night so they could wine and dine BEFORE they went on holiday. Did they have a schedule at the table? did they keep a record of visits in their head. It would seem the answer to these questions would be NO.
So, from that we can safely deduce that it was a flippant, irregular listening at the door system they had in place. Which if an abductor really did take Madeleine from her bed, then the blame lies with these adults.
No amout of ifs' whens and buts is going to change that. And Amaral saying anything about the time linein an interview would have been quoting what he was told was a 'timeline'.
The most interesting thing about THE timeline was/still is... JT seeing GM and an 'abductor' at a certain time. also Kate knowing what time it was when she checked at 10...
Did you miss the words (approximately/approx )regarding the times in my post?
The McCanns and their friends did no different to thousands of other parents on holiday who just like the McCanns made the decision to use the Listening method of childcare - or who used baby alarms - when they went to dinner.
It would appear that some sceptics desperately want to pretend to themselves that isn't the case and that it is the McCanns and their friends who invented this method of childcare. Utterly bizarre IMO.
-
How do you know?
There wasn't great investigation of fellow tourists was there. Under their system witnesses can't be asked incriminating questions so they would never know.
-
Did you miss the words (approximately/approx )regarding the times in my post?
The McCanns and their friends did no different to thousands of other parents on holiday who just like the McCanns made the decision to use the Listening method of childcare - or who used baby alarms - when they went to dinner.
It would appear that some sceptics desperately want to pretend to themselves that isn't the case and that it is the McCanns and their friends who invented this method of childcare. Utterly bizarre IMO.
Has anyone officially confirmed this?
-
Don't forget the Alcohol. Hardly essential.
Eating is.
I noticed that old canard had been dredged out of the pit again ... with one or two others. Probably on the basis that the old ones are the best.
The world has long ago moved into a new century and things have moved along with Madeleine McCann's case in which reliance on one smear after another passed for an investigative strategy.
The investigators of the Policia Judicairia and New Scotland Yard are way beyond such enthralling internet chit chat that you appear still to be caught up in.
They have been investigating and continue to do so with Madeleine McCann and her interests at the heart of it; it was a long time coming and it is interesting to see from where the most virulent opposition to it emanates.
Have no doubt about it ... there are factions which do not wish her well. There are also those who are keen to find her ... her parents and family most of all.
Quote
Earlier this week, Detective Chief Superintendent Mick Duthie, who supervises the force's Operation Grange hunt, said: 'There is always a possibility we will find Madeleine and we hope that we find her alive.
'That's what we want and that's what the family and the public want and that is why the Home Office continues to fund it.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3549374/Now-Portuguese-detective-vows-SUE-Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-years-prejudice-financial-losses-wins-libel-appeal-book.html#ixzz4bZrFARBN
-
I think Amaral should lay low for I get the feeling the current PJ heads are not pleased at his antics.
You only need to look at the things he says in this interview and you can see he doesn't really have a clue.
-
I noticed that old canard had been dredged out of the pit again ... with one or two others. Probably on the basis that the old ones are the best.
The world has long ago moved into a new century and things have moved along with Madeleine McCann's case in which reliance on one smear after another passed for an investigative strategy.
The investigators of the Policia Judicairia and New Scotland Yard are way beyond such enthralling internet chit chat that you appear still to be caught up in.
They have been investigating and continue to do so with Madeleine McCann and her interests at the heart of it; it was a long time coming and it is interesting to see from where the most virulent opposition to it emanates.
Have no doubt about it ... there are factions which do not wish her well. There are also those who are keen to find her ... her parents and family most of all.
Quote
Earlier this week, Detective Chief Superintendent Mick Duthie, who supervises the force's Operation Grange hunt, said: 'There is always a possibility we will find Madeleine and we hope that we find her alive.
'That's what we want and that's what the family and the public want and that is why the Home Office continues to fund it.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3549374/Now-Portuguese-detective-vows-SUE-Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-years-prejudice-financial-losses-wins-libel-appeal-book.html#ixzz4bZrFARBN
You can cling on to the 'Madeleine may still be alive' all you wish.
It won't change a thing.
As to the groups alcohol consumption, over the 5 days, a matter of fact.
Their attention was on socializing, not care of the children.
-
You can cling on to the 'Madeleine may still be alive' all you wish.
It won't change a thing.
As to the groups alcohol consumption, over the 5 days, a matter of fact.
Their attention was on socializing, not care of the children.
Ocean Club had the duty to provide the safe resort. Did they warn their guest about the spate of burglaries going on?
-
Ocean Club had the duty to provide the safe resort.
No Rob, that is the parents responsibility.
Always has been.
-
No Rob, that is the parents responsibility.
Always has been.
Did Ocean Club warn their guest about the spate of burglaries going on?
-
Did you miss the words (approximately/approx )regarding the times in my post?
The McCanns and their friends did no different to thousands of other parents on holiday who just like the McCanns made the decision to use the Listening method of childcare - or who used baby alarms - when they went to dinner.
It would appear that some sceptics desperately want to pretend to themselves that isn't the case and that it is the McCanns and their friends who invented this method of childcare. Utterly bizarre IMO.
No I didn't miss approximate at all. I read it with interest because of the contradictions. The point being made was THEY had no set scheduled time. Your post tried to evidence there was. but by putting in the appx it threw that argument.
So we can say with certainty the TAPAS group had no set times or schedule for checking their children via listening system on any evening or before they left the UK.
"The McCanns and their friends did no different to thousands of other parents"
From those thousands of parents how many lost children to 'abductors' AKA gang of paedophiles, who then went out a few days later knowing their child was abducted and 'celebrated' their birthday, balloons, flowers and happy faces knowing their child could be being tortured among other things. THEN instead of searching for their daughter went on a 'tour', set up a fund, got top lawyers and PR firms to 'support' them... if they did nothing wrong? You got facts and figures for that?
-
No I didn't miss approximate at all. I read it with interest because of the contradictions. The point being made was THEY had no set scheduled time. Your post tried to evidence there was. but by putting in the appx it threw that argument.
So we can say with certainty the TAPAS group had no set times or schedule for checking their children via listening system on any evening or before they left the UK.
"The McCanns and their friends did no different to thousands of other parents"
From those thousands of parents how many lost children to 'abductors' AKA gang of paedophiles, who then went out a few days later knowing their child was abducted and 'celebrated' their birthday, balloons, flowers and happy faces knowing their child could be being tortured among other things. THEN instead of searching for their daughter went on a 'tour', set up a fund, got top lawyers and PR firms to 'support' them... if they did nothing wrong? You got facts and figures for that?
One in one hundred million.
-
I think Amaral should lay low for I get the feeling the current PJ heads are not pleased at his antics.
Nor were they in 2007 ... I seem to remember they sacked him from the investigation into Madeleine's case.
He must also have harboured doubts that the judgement in the Cipriano torture case might not be going his way.
Perhaps he decided that rather than be sacked for that he would jump before he was pushed and become an author with the McCanns as collateral damage.
If only they had played ball and rolled over and confessed to a crime they did not commit thus ensuring that like Joana before her ... no-one would be looking for Madeleine ... all would have been well with Amaral's world.
-
Did Ocean Club warn their guest about the spate of burglaries going on?
I dont think that would have made a difference because the Tapas have always argued, along with die hard supporters, that they were like 'sitting in their garden'. so what burglar would even think to breakinto a house where the families were sitting in the garden...
-
I dont think that would have made a difference because the Tapas have always argued, along with die hard supporters, that they were like 'sitting in their garden'. so what burglar would even think to breakinto a house where the families were sitting in the garden...
OK a burglar is ruled out then. That suits me for my hypothesis didn't require a burglar.
-
Nor were they in 2007 ... I seem to remember they sacked him from the investigation into Madeleine's case.
He must also have harboured doubts that the judgement in the Cipriano torture case might not be going his way.
Perhaps he decided that rather than be sacked for that he would jump before he was pushed and become an author with the McCanns as collateral damage.
If only they had played ball and rolled over and confessed to a crime they did not commit thus ensuring that like Joana before her ... no-one would be looking for Madeleine ... all would have been well with Amaral's world.
Such a predictable statement.
Then I expected no less.
-
OK a burglar is ruled out then. That suits me for my hypothesis didn't require a burglar.
Oh that's good. Because in actual fact they were not like sitting in their garden at all. They couldn't see or hear their children as they were too far away and bushes blocked their view of the apartment, but apart from that, Madeleine and her twin siblings were asleep at the front of the building, awkward huh.
-
Such a predictable statement.
Then I expected no less.
Predictable because its true.
-
Did Ocean Club warn their guest about the spate of burglaries going on?
The McCann's locked their apartment during the day.
have you forgotten Rob ?
-
The McCann's locked their apartment during the day.
have you forgotten Rob ?
You told you that? So now you believe Kate and Gerry do you?
-
You told you that? So now you believe Kate and Gerry do you?
Are you calling them liars Rob ???
Try reading your first question again.
-
No I didn't miss approximate at all. I read it with interest because of the contradictions. The point being made was THEY had no set scheduled time. Your post tried to evidence there was. but by putting in the appx it threw that argument.
So we can say with certainty the TAPAS group had no set times or schedule for checking their children via listening system on any evening or before they left the UK.
"The McCanns and their friends did no different to thousands of other parents"
From those thousands of parents how many lost children to 'abductors' AKA gang of paedophiles, who then went out a few days later knowing their child was abducted and 'celebrated' their birthday, balloons, flowers and happy faces knowing their child could be being tortured among other things. THEN instead of searching for their daughter went on a 'tour', set up a fund, got top lawyers and PR firms to 'support' them... if they did nothing wrong? You got facts and figures for that?
My point re the timing was to show that it was approx every 30 mins in Madeleines case and every 15 mins in JT's children's case on the 3rd May. So those claims were basically correct.
You can make a case against anyone if you deliberately only select anything that suits your agenda. and ignore everything that contradicts your view - especially when you take stuff out of context in order to give it a different meaning. The latter being a favourite pastime of some sceptics IMO.
-
My point re the timing was to show that it was approx every 30 mins in Madeleines case and every 15 mins in JT's children's case on the 3rd May. So those claims were basically correct.
You can make a case against anyone if you deliberately only select anything that suits your agenda. and ignore everything that contradicts your view - especially when you take stuff out of context in order to give it a different meaning. The latter being a favourite pastime of some sceptics IMO.
You have no idea of how well the children were checked to see if they were OK.
-
Are you calling them liars Rob ???
Try reading your first question again.
I asked you whether you believed them. That is no reflection on the McCanns but an assessment of your views.
-
I asked you whether you believed them. That is no reflection on the McCanns but an assessment of your views.
I'll give you a clue.
At the start the Mccann's claimed the apartment was locked in the evenings, then it became unlocked.
There is no automatic right to believe the mccann's.
-
I'll give you a clue.
At the start the Mccann's claimed the apartment was locked in the evenings, then it became unlocked.
There is no automatic right to believe the mccann's.
Are you calling them liars Stephen ???
-
I think Amaral should lay low for I get the feeling the current PJ heads are not pleased at his antics.
You only need to look at the things he says in this interview and you can see he doesn't really have a clue.
In the interview he points out that the book is written to protest his removal from the case. Now looking at his understanding of the timeline I can see why. He should be arrested for breaking the duty of Reserve.
-
Are you calling them liars Stephen ???
I will call them what I wish.
So Rob, at the start, the apartment was locked, then it became unlocked.
Only one is true.
-
I will call them what I wish.
So Rob, at the start, the apartment was locked, then it became unlocked.
Only one is true.
It is only on one person's statement, the McCanns didn't make a joint statement like Jez and Bridget did.
In the case of the McCanns you can't call them both liars for only one changed their statement.
-
It is only on one person's statement, the McCanns didn't make a joint statement like Jez and Bridget did.
In the case of the McCanns you can call them both liars for only one changed their statement.
Did they leave the apartment together at the same time ?
Had they predetermined their childcare arrangements ?
-
Did they leave the apartment together at the same time ?
Had they predetermined their childcare arrangements ?
Pointless arguments sorry.
-
Pointless arguments sorry.
No, they are entirely relevant.
-
My point re the timing was to show that it was approx every 30 mins in Madeleines case and every 15 mins in JT's children's case on the 3rd May. So those claims were basically correct.
You can make a case against anyone if you deliberately only select anything that suits your agenda. and ignore everything that contradicts your view - especially when you take stuff out of context in order to give it a different meaning. The latter being a favourite pastime of some sceptics IMO.
Your point was of no such thing. You dismissed other posters statements about the dodgy timeline, by giving yours! even with or withour approximations
I challenged that and well.. as it turns out,
"So we can say with certainty the TAPAS group had no set times or schedule for checking their children via listening system on any evening or before they left the UK".
I don't have an agenda as you put it, you just cannot hold your argument in this debate.
If you are going to make bold statements to 'rubbish' others who disagree with you, then you should be prepared to be challenged.
-
Your point was of no such thing. You dismissed other posters statements about the dodgy timeline, by giving yours! even with or withour approximations
I challenged that and well.. as it turns out,
"So we can say with certainty the TAPAS group had no set times or schedule for checking their children via listening system on any evening or before they left the UK".
I don't have an agenda as you put it, you just cannot hold your argument in this debate.
If you are going to make bold statements to 'rubbish' others who disagree with you, then you should be prepared to be challenged.
When is the penny going to drop that the only timeline of any importance in Madeleine's case is that of an abductor.
-
When is the penny going to drop that the only timeline of any importance in Madeleine's case is that of an abductor.
You asked me the other day to post opinions, as that.
What you typed is an opinion.
-
You asked me the other day to post opinions, as that.
What you typed is an opinion.
No ... it is a statement of fact.
Neither the McCanns or their companions are either suspects or persons of interest in Madeleine's case. That simply means that whatever you and others get from poring over the timeline of events as it affects them is pointless.
Thanks to Portuguese leaks, it appears that an Ocean Club employee might be in a position to assist Scotland Yard with an account of his whereabouts and those of others at around the appropriate time.
That appears to be the timeline which is of interest to Scotland Yard and seems to be upsetting to the old guard.
-
No ... it is a statement of fact.
Neither the McCanns or their companions are either suspects or persons of interest in Madeleine's case. That simply means that whatever you and others get from poring over the timeline of events as it affects them is pointless.
Thanks to Portuguese leaks, it appears that an Ocean Club employee might be in a position to assist Scotland Yard with an account of his whereabouts and those of others at around the appropriate time.
That appears to be the timeline which is of interest to Scotland Yard and seems to be upsetting to the old guard.
Perhaps you would like to name the SY source for this.
-
Perhaps you would like to name the SY source for this.
That really is a decidedly odd post from someone who has been posting on McCann boards for any length of time ... you've been reading exactly the same cites I have ... the fact you chose to interpret them to suit yourself is entirely a matter for you.
-
No ... it is a statement of fact.
Neither the McCanns or their companions are either suspects or persons of interest in Madeleine's case. That simply means that whatever you and others get from poring over the timeline of events as it affects them is pointless.
Thanks to Portuguese leaks, it appears that an Ocean Club employee might be in a position to assist Scotland Yard with an account of his whereabouts and those of others at around the appropriate time.
That appears to be the timeline which is of interest to Scotland Yard and seems to be upsetting to the old guard.
P.S. Brietta, the crime , if one occurred in the apartment, remains still undetermined.
I will let you work out the implications of that for yourself.
-
That really is a decidedly odd post from someone who has been posting on McCann boards for any length of time ... you've been reading exactly the same cites I have ... the fact you chose to interpret them to suit yourself is entirely a matter for you.
That is precisely what you are doing.
Such are floundering in their efforts to pin someone for Madeleine's disappearance.
They may have many files, but you at stretching credulity if you believe they are close to solving this case.
-
P.S. Brietta, the crime , if one occurred in the apartment, remains still undetermined.
I will let you work out the implications of that for yourself.
Implications, of course, needing to be separated from wild and baseless accusations or imaginings ....
-
Implications, of course, needing to be separated from wild and baseless accusations or imaginings ....
Such as abduction ferryman.
-
P.S. Brietta, the crime , if one occurred in the apartment, remains still undetermined.
I will let you work out the implications of that for yourself.
Maddie was abducted or murdered by a person unknown according to SY
-
Maddie was abducted or murdered by a person unknown according to SY
Now we have murdered...
Is that from BHH Dave?
With his Freudian Slip ?
And if so, then the dog's alerted correctly.
-
Now we have murdered...
Is that from BHH Dave?
With his Freudian Slip ?
And if so, then the dog's alerted correctly.
of course its possible maddie was murdered and if you understood the alerts you would realise that this would not confirm the alerts
-
of course its possible maddie was murdered and if you understood the alerts you would realise that this would not confirm the alerts
If her body was proved to have been in 5a or clothing belonging to someone who handled her body was proved to have been in 5a, it would confirm the alerts.
-
If her body was proved to have been in 5a or clothing belonging to someone who handled her body was proved to have been in 5a, it would confirm the alerts.
No it wouldn't.
All it would prove is that a dog barked where a body had been.
-
No it wouldn't.
All it would prove is that a dog barked where a body had been.
Something like that.
-
If her body was proved to have been in 5a or clothing belonging to someone who handled her body was proved to have been in 5a, it would confirm the alerts.
It wouldn't
Think again
Her body would have had to have been there for an hour or more
-
Two sceptics who do not understand the alerts
How revealing
-
It wouldn't
Think again
Her body would have had to have been there for an hour or more
That is why GA initially implicated the friends but I don't recall him making them all arguidos either.
So was that point the main reason he was fired from the case?
Does he expound on the reason he was fired from the position?
-
That is why GA initially implicated the friends but I don't recall him making them all arguidos either.
So was that point the main reason he was fired from the case?
Does he expound on the reason he was fired from the position?
I believe he was removed from the case for criticising the uk police
-
I believe he was removed from the case for criticising the uk police
Indeed for interfering in the case.
They should have advised, not interfered.
-
I believe he was removed from the case for criticising the uk police
It was quite telling how the UK police lost interest in helping once the McCanns left Portugal.
-
It was quite telling how the UK police lost interest in helping once the McCanns left Portugal.
afaiac the uk police did not agree with the targetting of the mccanns....as the present situation shows
-
It wouldn't
Think again
Her body would have had to have been there for an hour or more
That time is for an adult no one has been able to confirm or deny if a child the age of Madeliene produces cadaver alert quicker because of the obviously undeveloped body or is the time constant no matter the age of a cadaver.
For obvious reasons it could easily be suspected that it would be all but impossible to confirm/deny it.
-
That time is for an adult no one has been able to confirm or deny if a child the age of Madeliene produces cadaver alert quicker because of the obviously undeveloped body or is the time constant no matter the age of a cadaver.
For obvious reasons it could easily be suspected that it would be all but impossible to confirm/deny it.
as no one can confirm or deny...... then the dog alerts would NOT be confirmed.....OK
-
That time is for an adult no one has been able to confirm or deny if a child the age of Madeliene produces cadaver alert quicker because of the obviously undeveloped body or is the time constant no matter the age of a cadaver.
For obvious reasons it could easily be suspected that it would be all but impossible to confirm/deny it.
I would imagine the lighter a body the longer it would have to remain there. This is because it would cool faster and hence decompose slower.
-
I would imagine the lighter a body the longer it would have to remain there. This is because it would cool faster and hence decompose slower.
Initial body temp is the same is it not? so I wonder if the starting point is the same then decomposition could be the same, straying off topic I fear.
-
Initial body temp is the same is it not? so I wonder if the starting point is the same then decomposition could be the same, straying off topic I fear.
until we know for a fact no claim re confirmation of teh alerts can be made
-
Initial body temp is the same is it not? so I wonder if the starting point is the same then decomposition could be the same, straying off topic I fear.
Not really it would depend on the cause of death. When animals are about to die (human animals would be the same) their body temperature would decline.
If two people were shot point blank (no cooling prior to death), the smaller would cool faster than the heavier (as the surface area to mass ratio would be higher).
For those who think Madeleine died in the apartment, they would need to consider the following questions.
But what did Madeleine die from and how rapidly did it happen? Did she die in her sleep? It is hard to say how much cooling occurred prior to death.
Did she fall and die instantly? Did she get picked up immediately or was she left on the cold floor?
Being left in her bed for hours doesn't seem like an option as there was no cadaver odour found on her bed clothes.
-
When is the penny going to drop that the only timeline of any importance in Madeleine's case is that of an abductor.
What abductor would this be then Brietta? There is no evidence of abductor so no penny to drop as it were. The McCanns and supporters are still selling the same ole cr@p. Not to help find their daughter ,no, not at all , this smoke and mirror is set up to protect their reputations that is what this is all about, and has been from the beginning. Fact is this: Last independant witness to see young Madeleine alive was 5.30 pm. police are alerted sometime around 11 pm. in-between we have people coming and going forgetting who saw who when and for how long.Talk about farce!
-
What abductor would this be then Brietta? There is no evidence of abductor so no penny to drop as it were. The McCanns and supporters are still selling the same ole cr@p. Not to help find their daughter ,no, not at all , this smoke and mirror is set up to protect their reputations that is what this is all about, and has been from the beginning. Fact is this: Last independant witness to see young Madeleine alive was 5.30 pm. police are alerted sometime around 11 pm. in-between we have people coming and going forgetting who saw who when and for how long.Talk about farce!
when you supply proof of parental involvement or proof of maddie leaving the apartment on her own then the possibility of an abductor exists
-
when you supply proof of parental involvement or proof of maddie leaving the apartment on her own then the possibility of an abductor exists
What is the logic behind that statement?
-
How did the PJ get hold of Kate's diary?
From the interview:
"Kate's diary, seized a few months later, revealed the whole machinery set up by the family to feed the abduction thesis"
"The diary is among a number of personal items prosecutors want from the parents of missing Madeleine McCann, sources close to the investigation have said.
Portuguese police have passed on a request to the British authorities to take the possessions from the family's home in Rothley, Leicestershire, according to reports." http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/law_order/whats%2Bin%2Bkate%2Bmccanns%2Bdiary/797747.html
-
Leaking the content of Kate's diary to the press is not a good look for the PJ. In the interview GA tries to make ground referring to the diary seems he is trying to justify this. The diary was never released officially into the public domain there fore I'd say it sits badly that Goncalo refers to a personal document.
Leveson: "..... The diary was seized by the Portuguese police and I have a, just to make it clear, I have an understanding that the Portuguese authorities required it to be returned with no copies kept but that it some way it found it, its way to the…"
-
Leaking the content of Kate's diary to the press is not a good look for the PJ. In the interview GA tries to make ground referring to the diary seems he is trying to justify this. The diary was never released officially into the public domain there fore I'd say it sits badly that Goncalo refers to a personal document.
Leveson: "..... The diary was seized by the Portuguese police and I have a, just to make it clear, I have an understanding that the Portuguese authorities required it to be returned with no copies kept but that it some way it found it, its way to the…"
The Copies taken by The PJ were ordered to be destroyed by a Portuguese Judge. This didn't happen. A clear breach of Portuguese Law.
-
The Copies taken by The PJ were ordered to be destroyed by a Portuguese Judge. This didn't happen. A clear breach of Portuguese Law.
There have been multiple leaks from both sides in this case.
-
There have been multiple leaks from both sides in this case.
One side is suppose to be upholding the law not breaking it.
-
One side is suppose to be upholding the law not breaking it.
Aren't both supposed to do that,or are you saying its ok for one but lets criticise the other.
-
One side is suppose to be upholding the law not breaking it.
Really.
If the McCann's were leaking material from 'sources close to the Mccanns', they were breaking the law.
-
Although it's taken as a fact that the PJ leaked Kate's diary I don't think there's any evidence that they did?
-
The diary was wrote to be read, by others IMO
-
Although it's taken as a fact that the PJ leaked Kate's diary I don't think there's any evidence that they did?
They obviously didn't destroy the copies, as ordered. Or do you think someone else took a copy while The PJ weren't watching?
-
Although it's taken as a fact that the PJ leaked Kate's diary I don't think there's any evidence that they did?
Extract from the transcript: Leveson Inquiry
GARNHAM The third suggested clarification, Sir, is this, and it is in fact me rather seeking a clarification from Mr. Sherborne. He mentioned a little while ago that Mr…, that the diary of Mrs. McCann had been obtained in some way or other from the police. That obviously caused us a little concern. I suspect its the Portuguese…
LEVESON I read that as the Portuguese police.
SHERBORNE I thought I had said actually it was the Portuguese police but if I didn’t make that clear, it was the Portuguese police.
GARNHAM I am grateful for that. That will enable…
LEVESON Yes well, as I recollect, and I don’t know whether I’m giving evidence of this from what I’ve read or from the statements or whether Mr. Sherborne said it. The diary was seized by the Portuguese police and I have a, just to make it clear, I have an understanding that the Portuguese authorities required it to be returned with no copies kept but that it some way it found it, its way to the…
GARNHAM I suspect that comes from the statement of Mr. McCann but it doesn’t matter as long as the position is dealt with.
https://madeleinemccannthetruth.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/leveson-inquiry-kate-mccanns-diary/
-
They obviously didn't destroy the copies, as ordered. Or do you think someone else took a copy while The PJ weren't watching?
Let's look at the evidence. There were 189 pages from two exercise-books and one notepad. They were photocopied by Joao Carlos on 10th September 2007. They were described as 'two diaries' when received by the Court on 13th September. The Court ordered the photocopies to be translated and the translator returned them on 4th October. On 27th June 2008 the judge ruled that the diaries were personal and should be destroyed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BIBLE.htm
On 13th September 2007 the Daily Mail claimed that Portuguese newspapers were printing extracts from the diary (s). It said;
Kate is alleged to have moaned about her missing daughter in her diary and the lack of help she gets from her husband with domestic chores and bringing up their three kids.
Portuguese tabloid Correio da Manha headlined its front page today: "Kate insults her children in her diary." It claimed on an inside page: "She complains frequently that her children are 'hysterical' and speaks of Madeleine as a child whose excess activity exhausts her.
"She tells also how Gerry doesn't help her with the family chores and that she has to cope alone with her two youngest children.".....Publico, a daily newspaper with a more serious reputation, also claimed Kate's worries about her children's behaviour and her difficulties disciplining them were contained in the diary.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481645/McCanns-facing-fresh-slurs-Portuguese-press-Kates-diaries.html#ixzz4bg9NWumM
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Other details revealed by the Portuguese newspapers can be read here;
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id166.htm
Extracts printed by the News of the World on 14th September 2008 consisted of 135 pages covering 28th April 2007 to 31st July 2007. They claimed to have received them from a Portuguese journalist;
"appalled by the sickening smear campaign against the McCann's."
The News of the World 'diary' contained little of the information printed by the Portuguese newspapers. That information probably wasn't invented, however, because some of it appears in 'madeleine'.
I conclude that Kate's diary and notes were given to Portuguese journalists by someone. The candidates being the PJ, Court officials or the translator. Amaral wasn't the culprit; he was long gone in July 2008. If a Portuguese journalist gave (or sold) the diary to the NotW he/she gave them incomplete information or they censored it before printing.
-
Aren't both supposed to do that,or are you saying its ok for one but lets criticise the other.
Is one side supposedly criminal an the other law-abiding? Which side is which?
-
Let's look at the evidence. There were 189 pages from two exercise-books and one notepad. They were photocopied by Joao Carlos on 10th September 2007. They were described as 'two diaries' when received by the Court on 13th September. The Court ordered the photocopies to be translated and the translator returned them on 4th October. On 27th June 2008 the judge ruled that the diaries were personal and should be destroyed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BIBLE.htm
On 13th September 2007 the Daily Mail claimed that Portuguese newspapers were printing extracts from the diary (s). It said;
Kate is alleged to have moaned about her missing daughter in her diary and the lack of help she gets from her husband with domestic chores and bringing up their three kids.
Portuguese tabloid Correio da Manha headlined its front page today: "Kate insults her children in her diary." It claimed on an inside page: "She complains frequently that her children are 'hysterical' and speaks of Madeleine as a child whose excess activity exhausts her.
"She tells also how Gerry doesn't help her with the family chores and that she has to cope alone with her two youngest children.".....Publico, a daily newspaper with a more serious reputation, also claimed Kate's worries about her children's behaviour and her difficulties disciplining them were contained in the diary.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481645/McCanns-facing-fresh-slurs-Portuguese-press-Kates-diaries.html#ixzz4bg9NWumM
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Other details revealed by the Portuguese newspapers can be read here;
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id166.htm
Extracts printed by the News of the World on 14th September 2008 consisted of 135 pages covering 28th April 2007 to 31st July 2007. They claimed to have received them from a Portuguese journalist;
"appalled by the sickening smear campaign against the McCann's."
The News of the World 'diary' contained little of the information printed by the Portuguese newspapers. That information probably wasn't invented, however, because some of it appears in 'madeleine'.
I conclude that Kate's diary and notes were given to Portuguese journalists by someone. The candidates being the PJ, Court officials or the translator. Amaral wasn't the culprit; he was long gone in July 2008. If a Portuguese journalist gave (or sold) the diary to the NotW he/she gave them incomplete information or they censored it before printing.
Why did the Portuguese Judge get involved? Were the PJ planning to make these documents public and hence they needed the Judges's say so to do this?
If the PJ wanted to make them public and the Judge said "No", who is the most likely candidate to leak them?
-
Whoever leaked the diary obviously had no morals whatsoever.
-
The Mccann's lost any moral high ground when they placed details of their private lives in the press.
-
Why did the Portuguese Judge get involved? Were the PJ planning to make these documents public and hence they needed the Judges's say so to do this?
If the PJ wanted to make them public and the Judge said "No", who is the most likely candidate to leak them?
The judge was asked to decide if the diaries should be entered into evidence. He eventually decided, around nine months later, that they should not. A month later they were with the Portuguese media. If the bits we haven't seen said what those newspapers reported they said the diaries certainly contained interesting information about the family dynamics. If they didn't, I'm amazed the McCanns took no action against the newpapers.
-
The judge was asked to decide if the diaries should be entered into evidence. He eventually decided, around nine months later, that they should not. A month later they were with the Portuguese media. If the bits we haven't seen said what those newspapers reported they said the diaries certainly contained interesting information about the family dynamics. If they didn't, I'm amazed the McCanns took no action against the newpapers.
The McCanns did take action against the newspapers. It was settled out of court.
-
Thanks G-unit. "The judge was asked to decide if the diaries should be entered into evidence. He eventually decided, around nine months later, that they should not."
If they were not to be used as evidence what was the purpose that Goncalo brought Kate's diary up during the interview?
-
The McCanns did take action against the newspapers. It was settled out of court.
Not against Correio da Manha, who published a lot of information from Kate's diaries/notebooks. They objected to the News of the World publishing extracts which were far less controversial, however.
-
Not against Correio da Manha, who published a lot of information from Kate's diaries/notebooks. They objected to the News of the World publishing extracts which were far less controversial, however.
-
It seems that the papers would be able to print any lies they want in Portugal
-
It seems that the papers would be able to print any lies they want in Portugal
If they printed lies why didn't the McCanns object? Perhaps they didn't print lies.
-
If they printed lies why didn't the McCanns object? Perhaps they didn't print lies.
You cannot be serious.
-
If they printed lies why didn't the McCanns object? Perhaps they didn't print lies.
Amaral has told lies on tv
It seems it's allowed in Portugal
He claimed he could prove Maddie died in the apartment
Which he cant
-
Amaral has told lies on tv
It seems it's allowed in Portugal
He claimed he could prove Maddie died in the apartment
Which he cant
I think he means he could have done that if they let him stay in his job, but they demoted him fortunately to a desk job.
-
I think he means he could have done that if they let him stay in his job, but they demoted him fortunately to a desk job.
Fortunately?
-
Fourunately?
Very fortunately. God knows what havoc he might have wreaked otherwise.
-
Very fortunately. God knows what havoc he might have wreaked otherwise.
So you think it's fortunate that GA was prevented from proving M died in the apartment?
-
So you think it's fortunate that GA was prevented from proving M died in the apartment?
I think it's fortunate he wasn't allowed to twist and influence the investigation any further.
-
I think it's fortunate he wasn't allowed to twist and influence the investigation any further.
You are happy that no matter whether he was right or wrong and with the possibility that he may have been able to find out what happened to Madeleine, he wasn't allowed to progress the case.
-
You are happy that no matter whether he was right or wrong and with the possibility that he may have been able to find out what happened to Madeleine, he wasn't allowed to progress the case.
What evidence suggests to you that he may have been right in anything regarding his assessment of the case? For example ... did the forensic results back up any of his fantasies?
-
What evidence suggests to you that he may have been right in anything regarding his assessment of the case? For example ... did the forensic results back up any of his fantasies?
You mean fantasies, such as abduction Brietta ?
-
You are happy that no matter whether he was right or wrong and with the possibility that he may have been able to find out what happened to Madeleine, he wasn't allowed to progress the case.
Yes, I am happy. He obviously didn't know what he was doing. And he wasn't the only Coordinator available.
Actually, given the circumstances, he should never have been in charge in the first place.
-
What evidence suggests to you that he may have been right in anything regarding his assessment of the case? For example ... did the forensic results back up any of his fantasies?
You miss the point, a senior policeman says he can prove something about a case and all one Group want to do is stop him.
-
You miss the point, a senior policeman says he can prove something about a case and all one Group want to do is stop him.
A sacked former police officer with a criminal conviction ... I don't place too much reliance on him even if you do.
-
You miss the point, a senior policeman says he can prove something about a case and all one Group want to do is stop him.
You miss the point
He cannot prove it
He is basically telling lies
If he can prove it then he should do so in court not a tv show
-
A sacked former police officer with a criminal conviction ... I don't place too much reliance on him even if you do.
QED
-
A sacked former police officer with a criminal conviction ... I don't place too much reliance on him even if you do.
Well, that really comes as no surprise.
-
A sacked former police officer with a criminal conviction ... I don't place too much reliance on him even if you do.
Well there seems little evidence of the mighty MET coming any where near providing any thing which suggest's he was so wrong.Multi millions and many officers just can't find the elusive pimpernel.
-
Well there seems little evidence of the mighty MET coming any where near providing any thing which suggest's he was so wrong.Multi millions and many officers just can't find the elusive pimpernel.
He was wrong with his understanding of the dog alerts and the forensic evidence
SY have said the McCanns are not suspects so therefore consider him wrong in thinking the parents are guilty
-
You are happy that no matter whether he was right or wrong and with the possibility that he may have been able to find out what happened to Madeleine, he wasn't allowed to progress the case.
Are you saying Rebelo wasn't as capable as Amaral?
-
Well there seems little evidence of the mighty MET coming any where near providing any thing which suggest's he was so wrong.Multi millions and many officers just can't find the elusive pimpernel.
Indeed Barrier.
They seek to destroy Amaral here, they seek to destroy Amaral there, those supporters seek him everywhere.
That damned elusive Amaral. 8(0(*
-
You miss the point, a senior policeman says he can prove something about a case and all one Group want to do is stop him.
He said he could prove it after he was removed from the case. We're still waiting, what's stopping him?
-
He was wrong with his understanding of the dog alerts and the forensic evidence
SY have said the McCanns are not suspects so therefore consider him wrong in thinking the parents are guilty
Redwood also said, Madeleine could have died in the apartment.
-
So you think it's fortunate that GA was prevented from proving M died in the apartment?
That, of course, is a post of outright libel.
Which I am guilty of repeating, making me, also, guilty of libel.
-
So you think it's fortunate that GA was prevented from proving M died in the apartment?
I don't think the proof would have stood scrutiny. They had the chance to take samples etc from the apartment before he was demoted.
-
You are happy that no matter whether he was right or wrong and with the possibility that he may have been able to find out what happened to Madeleine, he wasn't allowed to progress the case.
We have to accept that his bosses felt the same way.
-
You mean fantasies, such as abduction Brietta ?
What is the forensic test for abduction?
-
Redwood also said, Madeleine could have died in the apartment.
as we have discussed a million times before....parents not suspects...maddie could have died in the aprtment
of course she could but as the parents are not suspects not at the hands of her parents
-
if amaral can prove maddie died in the aparatment he should presnt his evidence to the pj....if not simply post it on the net
he cannot....a lot of peopele have been fooled by amaral
-
as we have discussed a million times before....parents not suspects...maddie could have died in the aprtment
of course she could but as the parents are not suspects not at the hands of her parents
Indeed, accidental death.
That has not been disproved.
By the way, who said her parents as regards that ?
-
Indeed, accidental death.
That has bot been disproved.
By the way, who said her parents as regards that ?
I knew you would be excited about Davel's post.
-
if amaral can prove maddie died in the aparatment he should presnt his evidence to the pj....if not simply post it on the net
he cannot....a lot of peopele have been fooled by amaral
Again dave.
People did not need Amaral to consider accidental death as a scenario.
Try remembering that, it would help.
-
Indeed, accidental death.
That has bot been disproved.
By the way, who said her parents as regards that ?
if redwood suspected an accidental death the the parents would be suspects so no
as we have discussed...no one has been able to come up with an accident scenario that fits the time frame
and expalin why the mccanns would cover it up
and exaplin why they havee kept the case open for ten years...absolutely barmy
-
I knew you would be excited about Davel's post.
That is not the description I would use.
-
Again dave.
People did not need Amaral to consider accidental death as a scenario.
Try remembering that, it would help.
I have never said that
... you are imagining things...oh dear
-
if redwood suspected an accidental death the the parents would be suspects so no
as we have discussed...no one has been able to come up with an accident scenario that fits the time frame
and expalin why the mccanns would cover it up
and exaplin why they havee kept the case open for ten years...absolutely barmy
Agreeing with yourself dave, is not discussion.
-
Agreeing with yourself dave, is not discussion.
you are imagining things again...oh dear
-
Agreeing with yourself dave, is not discussion.
Repeating the same mantra over and over again is not a discussion either.
-
Repeating the same mantra over and over again is not a discussion either.
Is this because you don't like facts.
-
you are imagining things again...oh dear
No dave, the problems, which are considerable, reside in your own backyard.
-
Is this because you don't like facts.
what are the facts then
-
Is this because you don't like facts.
No because it would help you to say something different for a change.
-
No because it would help you to say something different for a change.
I do Rob, but unfortunately it doesn't tally with your mantra.
-
I do Rob, but unfortunately it doesn't tally with your mantra.
That's good to hear.
-
I do Rob, but unfortunately it doesn't tally with your mantra.
the parents are not suspects according to SY...fact
-
the parents are not suspects according to SY...fact
But they might not be cleared either just as in Portugal.
-
Back to the interview:https://youtu.be/-FKsKD78Qsc?t=2190
"From the first moment. It was almost simultaneous that press statement of the Judiciary Police was read. ....
"When all the other lines of investigation, namely the abduction, reached a dead end. So we had to go back to the starting point." https://youtu.be/-FKsKD78Qsc?t=2224
So from that Amaral did consider an abduction.
-
Back to the interview:https://youtu.be/-FKsKD78Qsc?t=2190
"From the first moment. It was almost simultaneous that press statement of the Judiciary Police was read. ....
"When all the other lines of investigation, namely the abduction, reached a dead end. So we had to go back to the starting point." https://youtu.be/-FKsKD78Qsc?t=2224
So from that Amaral did consider an abduction.
You will get into trouble for saying that 8(0(*
-
Back to the interview:https://youtu.be/-FKsKD78Qsc?t=2190
"From the first moment. It was almost simultaneous that press statement of the Judiciary Police was read. ....
"When all the other lines of investigation, namely the abduction, reached a dead end. So we had to go back to the starting point." https://youtu.be/-FKsKD78Qsc?t=2224
So from that Amaral did consider an abduction.
In red Rob.
Archiving report.
Considering the participated facts, conjugated with the information that was offered. namely by the witnesses, and with the information that was made available through the development of the inquiry, the investigation equated the verification of several hypotheses: abduction, for the purpose of sexual exploration or others (i.e. posterior adoption, child traffic, organ traffic), without homicide; abduction, followed by homicide with (or without) concealment of a cadaver, hypotheses that were considered under the double sides of the abduction (if it existed) having occurred due to feelings of vengeance of the abductor(s) towards the parents (directed abduction) or simply taking advantage of the circumstance that the child was in a situation of actual vulnerability (opportunity abduction), accidental death, with posterior concealment of the cadaver and, underlying all of these possibilities, abandonment, substantiated as a crime under article 138 of the Penal Code. The possibility of theft, whose author would have been disturbed by the child Madeleine and who, in order to prevent her from disturbing him, neutralised her in a violent manner, and, afterwards, took her with him, dead or alive, in order to leave no trace that could eventually lead to his identification.
-
But they might not be cleared either just as in Portugal.
they have not been cleared because they have not been charged
you could equally say the grandmother of Ben Needham has not been cleared....it is an insult
-
they have not been cleared because they have not been charged
you could equally say the grandmother of Ben Needham has not been cleared....it is an insult
Did Ben Needham's Grandma say she had been cleared?
-
Did Ben Needham's Grandma say she had been cleared?
as no noe has accused her of anything she has not had reason to say anything...she was a suspect and she has not been officialy cleared
-
as no noe has accused her of anything she has not had reason to say anything...she was a suspect and she has not been officialy cleared
But that is the difference. It had been claimed that the McCanns had been cleared which was not the case.
-
the parents are not suspects according to SY...fact
which fact would this be?
What crime is it exactly they are not suspects in? and based on what evidence is DCI talking about?
Now then it is a bit silly to establish constrains on an 'investigation' when you tell everyone you are going 'back to the begining' One has to wonder which begining were they talking about?
-
which fact would this be?
What crime is it exactly they are not suspects in? and based on what evidence is DCI talking about?
Now then it is a bit silly to establish constrains on an 'investigation' when you tell everyone you are going 'back to the begining' One has to wonder which begining were they talking about?
you would have to know when the decision was taken to investigate an abduction...the remit emerged some 6 months agter the start of the review so i would say the mccanns were investigated...you might disagree
-
But that is the difference. It had been claimed that the McCanns had been cleared which was not the case.
depends what they mean by cleared there is no precise definition
-
you would have to know when the decision was taken to investigate an abduction...the remit emerged some 6 months agter the start of the review so i would say the mccanns were investigated...you might disagree
I can't agree or disagree on someones guestimate now can I? Based on information from a very senior Police officer in the UK. No police investigaiton would rule in or rule out anyone until the investigation was complete, ofcourse he may be lying to me...
-
I can't agree or disagree on someones guestimate now can I? Based on information from a very senior Police officer in the UK. No police investigaiton would rule in or rule out anyone until the investigation was complete, ofcourse he may be lying to me...
what very senior police officer LOL
-
Nice description. I trust we may also refer to you in the same fashion as a supporter of Amaral? No, thought not.
Why? This obsession that all sceptics support Amaral is a bit bizarre.
-
Why? This obsession that all sceptics support Amaral is a bit bizarre.
Amaral, dogs, Grime, whatever - my point was the words used to describe McCann supporters - is it OK to use this phrase to describe you or Miss Taken or are you going to get off YOUR backside and delete the offensive comments?
-
Amaral, dogs, Grime, whatever - my point was the words used to describe McCann supporters - is it OK to use this phrase to describe you or Miss Taken or are you going to get off YOUR backside and delete the offensive comments?
No and no. I would assume you don't consider yourself a baying fang flashing supporter who froths at the mouth.
-
No and no. I would assume you don't consider yourself a baying fang flashing supporter who froths at the mouth.
You seem to have a problem understanding today.
Davel asked Miss Taken to name a police officer that she claims told her something
She then replied:
"Naming names is not my style, especially to the baying, fang flashing, supporters who froth at the mouth when they happen to find a new 'victim' to blame for Madeleine's disappearance."
It's obvious (though clearly not to you) that she is referring to Davel, and by extension the rest of us on this forum. What are you going to do about it? Nothing I suppose. I guess I will just have to report it and get a proper moderator to sort it out.
-
You seem to have a problem understanding today.
Davel asked Miss Taken to name a police officer that she claims told her something
She then replied:
"Naming names is not my style, especially to the baying, fang flashing, supporters who froth at the mouth when they happen to find a new 'victim' to blame for Madeleine's disappearance."
It's obvious (though clearly not to you) that she is referring to Davel, and by extension the rest of us on this forum. What are you going to do about it? Nothing I suppose. I guess I will just have to report it and get a proper moderator to sort it out.
She refers to a subset of supporters.
-
You seem to have a problem understanding today.
Davel asked Miss Taken to name a police officer that she claims told her something
She then replied:
"Naming names is not my style, especially to the baying, fang flashing, supporters who froth at the mouth when they happen to find a new 'victim' to blame for Madeleine's disappearance."
It's obvious (though clearly not to you) that she is referring to Davel, and by extension the rest of us on this forum. What are you going to do about it? Nothing I suppose. I guess I will just have to report it and get a proper moderator to sort it out.
Whatever for ?
-
What is the forensic test for abduction?
If there is no evidence of "woke and wandered" I would imagine that a missing child might be an indication of abduction.
-
Again dave.
People did not need Amaral to consider accidental death as a scenario.
Try remembering that, it would help.
Usually in cases of accidental death remains are found at the scene.
-
She refers to a subset of supporters.
so in your opinion she is not trying to be in any way insulting or goading to Davel, or other supporters on here, is that your belief?
-
Whatever for ?
Just exploring the hilarious double standards on this forum, hope that's OK with you?
-
Just exploring the hilarious double standards on this forum, hope that's OK with you?
Absolutely old chap, you just carry on.
-
Any posts containing further insulting, goading or offensive comments will be deleted In Full.
-
But that is the difference. It had been claimed that the McCanns had been cleared which was not the case.
They weren't 'cleared', because they were never charged, and therefore never in need of being 'clearedl'.
More accurately, they were unjustly accused, on the back of no evidence (of any wrong-doing, including that their checking-arrangements were deemed to pass muster legally).
-
You seem to have a problem understanding today.
Davel asked Miss Taken to name a police officer that she claims told her something
She then replied:
"Naming names is not my style, especially to the baying, fang flashing, supporters who froth at the mouth when they happen to find a new 'victim' to blame for Madeleine's disappearance."
It's obvious (though clearly not to you) that she is referring to Davel, and by extension the rest of us on this forum. What are you going to do about it? Nothing I suppose. I guess I will just have to report it and get a proper moderator to sort it out.
It's ok Alf
I think most sensible people can see exactly what mistaken is
-
you would have to know when the decision was taken to investigate an abduction...the remit emerged some 6 months agter the start of the review so i would say the mccanns were investigated...you might disagree
Perhaps you can provide citations for when SY interviewed then.
Obviously,, those in Portugal, including Murat were exposed to the media spotlight.
-
so in your opinion she is not trying to be in any way insulting or goading to Davel, or other supporters on here, is that your belief?
Yes, people when posting on here don't do that.
-
They weren't 'cleared', because they were never charged, and therefore never in need of being 'clearedl'.
More accurately, they were unjustly accused, on the back of no evidence (of any wrong-doing, including that their checking-arrangements were deemed to pass muster legally).
If they hadn't said they had been cleared it wouldn't have been brought in at the SC. Once they decided to state what they believed to be their "legal" status it behoved the SC to correct that error.
-
Yes, people when posting on here don't do that.
@)(++(*
-
If they hadn't said they had been cleared it wouldn't have been brought in at the SC. Once they decided to state what they believed to be their "legal" status it behoved the SC to correct that error.
What is their legal status then?
-
@)(++(*
BTW responses consisting purely of emoticons are frowned on, please don't do it.
-
What is their legal status then?
They have a presumption of innocence but have not been cleared according to the SC.
-
You seem to have a problem understanding today.
Davel asked Miss Taken to name a police officer that she claims told her something
She then replied:
"Naming names is not my style, especially to the baying, fang flashing, supporters who froth at the mouth when they happen to find a new 'victim' to blame for Madeleine's disappearance."
It's obvious (though clearly not to you) that she is referring to Davel, and by extension the rest of us on this forum. What are you going to do about it? Nothing I suppose. I guess I will just have to report it and get a proper moderator to sort it out.
Why not just do it ,old stick, and forget all the old song and dance.
-
I think the appeal court judges have caused a constitutional crisis for Portugal. The Republic's constitution is quite clear regarding the recognition and legality of European of laws to which Portugal is a signatory.
The judges have just driven a coach and horses right through European human rights legislation.
-
I think the appeal court judges have caused a constitutional crisis for Portugal. The Republic's constitution is quite clear regarding the recognition and legality of European of laws to which Portugal is a signatory.
The judges have just driven a coach and horses right through European human rights legislation.
Maybe, maybe not.
I would sure love to see the "workings" behind you conclusions though.
Quoting relevant laws and clauses of course otherwise it's not telling us much
-
I think the appeal court judges have caused a constitutional crisis for Portugal. The Republic's constitution is quite clear regarding the recognition and legality of European of laws to which Portugal is a signatory.
The judges have just driven a coach and horses right through European human rights legislation.
Utter cobblers.
The Mccann's violated their children's rights by not protecting them.
That is the real truth.
-
They have a presumption of innocence but have not been cleared according to the SC.
So, had the McCanns never have claimed to have been cleared would Amaral have lost his appeal?
-
So, had the McCanns never have claimed to have been cleared would Amaral have lost his appeal?
No. The innocence question was just part of the extensive and exhaustive SC judgement but not key to the success or failure of the appeal.
-
No. The innocence question was just part of the extensive and exhaustive SC judgement but not key to the success or failure of the appeal.
Indeed! And it is telling that the length of time taken,it would appear to be the case that is was very thourough.
-
No. The innocence question was just part of the extensive and exhaustive SC judgement but not key to the success or failure of the appeal.
So what was the key to the success of the appeal then?
-
Maybe, maybe not.
I would sure love to see the "workings" behind you conclusions though.
Quoting relevant laws and clauses of course otherwise it's not telling us much
Must have been your 'day off' when I posted this first time round. However I have no worries about repeating myself at your request.
Quote
In describing a television broadcast which slammed libel upon libel hardly bothering with libellous innuendo ... it was immediately apparent that open season had certainly been declared on the McCanns and their friends ... that is if it had ever been closed.
Read carefully what I actually said about that ...
"With the worst type of accusation being banded about with unreconstructed viciousness." ... which does not match your paraphrased version of what you say I said.
I do wish you were able to present your case without the necessity for invention.
However while reading the transcript yet again to refresh on the libellous accusations being reiterated, the reputations being trashed with "unreconstructed viciousness" and the embellishing of quite a few of the more scurrilous myths, I also read the header on the site.
Which proudly quotes from the Portuguese Constitution as follows ... 1.Everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination 2.Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of censorship.
Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, Article 37.º
However the Constitution consists of much more than Goncalo Amaral's freedom of expression and thus the freedom apparently enjoyed by television panellists to destroy the good name of whoever may take the fancy of the moment.
It includes ...
Article 16
Scope and sense of fundamental rights
1. The fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution do not exclude any others contained in applicable laws and rules of international law.
2. The constitutional and legal precepts relating to fundamental rights must be interpreted and integrated in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
http://www.parlamento.pt/Legislacao/Paginas/ConstituicaoRepublicaPortuguesa.aspx#art37
Perhaps the television panellists et al should consider tempering their enthusiasm until they see how the McCanns might react to the rights enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic which incorporate the guarantee of the implementation of International law.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7992.msg389157#msg389157 End quote
-
So what was the key to the success of the appeal then?
Read it and find out.
-
Read it and find out.
I'll wait for Slarti to tell me, he or she is very fond of putting me right. 8((()*/
-
I'll wait for Slarti to tell me, he or she is very fond of putting me right. 8((()*/
sure thing Brother, was just helping out a supporter.. 8**8:/:
-
Must have been your 'day off' when I posted this first time round. However I have no worries about repeating myself at your request.
Quote
In describing a television broadcast which slammed libel upon libel hardly bothering with libellous innuendo ... it was immediately apparent that open season had certainly been declared on the McCanns and their friends ... that is if it had ever been closed.
Read carefully what I actually said about that ...
"With the worst type of accusation being banded about with unreconstructed viciousness." ... which does not match your paraphrased version of what you say I said.
I do wish you were able to present your case without the necessity for invention.
However while reading the transcript yet again to refresh on the libellous accusations being reiterated, the reputations being trashed with "unreconstructed viciousness" and the embellishing of quite a few of the more scurrilous myths, I also read the header on the site.
Which proudly quotes from the Portuguese Constitution as follows ... 1.Everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination 2.Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of censorship.
Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, Article 37.º
However the Constitution consists of much more than Goncalo Amaral's freedom of expression and thus the freedom apparently enjoyed by television panellists to destroy the good name of whoever may take the fancy of the moment.
It includes ...
Article 16
Scope and sense of fundamental rights
1. The fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution do not exclude any others contained in applicable laws and rules of international law.
2. The constitutional and legal precepts relating to fundamental rights must be interpreted and integrated in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
http://www.parlamento.pt/Legislacao/Paginas/ConstituicaoRepublicaPortuguesa.aspx#art37
Perhaps the television panellists et al should consider tempering their enthusiasm until they see how the McCanns might react to the rights enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic which incorporate the guarantee of the implementation of International law.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7992.msg389157#msg389157 End quote
Article 37 says:
Freedom of expression and information
1. Everyone has the right freely to express and disseminate his or her thinking by word, image or other means, as well as the right to inform, to inform and to be informed, without hindrance or discrimination.
2. The exercise of these rights can not be prevented or limited by any type or form of censorship.
3. Infringements committed in the exercise of these rights shall be subject to the general principles of criminal law or of the unlawful act of mere social ordinance, respectively, being the jurisdiction of the courts or independent administrative entity, in accordance with the law.
4. All persons, whether natural or legal, shall be entitled, under conditions of equality and efficiency, to a right of reply and rectification, as well as the right to compensation for damages suffered.
So how in your opinion does the SC ruling in the rejection of the McCanns appeal "drive a coach and horses" through anything?
To do so would include but not be limited to :o
The SC infringing a relevant law. So which law has been infringed?
-
Article 37 says:
Freedom of expression and information
1. Everyone has the right freely to express and disseminate his or her thinking by word, image or other means, as well as the right to inform, to inform and to be informed, without hindrance or discrimination.
2. The exercise of these rights can not be prevented or limited by any type or form of censorship.
3. Infringements committed in the exercise of these rights shall be subject to the general principles of criminal law or of the unlawful act of mere social ordinance, respectively, being the jurisdiction of the courts or independent administrative entity, in accordance with the law.
4. All persons, whether natural or legal, shall be entitled, under conditions of equality and efficiency, to a right of reply and rectification, as well as the right to compensation for damages suffered.
So how in your opinion does the SC ruling in the rejection of the McCanns appeal "drive a coach and horses" through anything?
To do so would include but not be limited to :o
The SC infringing a relevant law. So which law has been infringed?
1. The fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution do not exclude any others contained in applicable laws and rules of international law.
that one
-
1. The fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution do not exclude any others contained in applicable laws and rules of international law.
that one
Which particular international law did you have in mind and how in your opinion was it infringed ?
-
Which particular international law did you have in mind and how in your opinion was it infringed ?
the ECHR which limits freedom of speech in respect to the rights and good name of others
-
Utter cobblers.
The Mccann's violated their children's rights by not protecting them.
That is the real truth.
Your mantra again.
-
Must have been your 'day off' when I posted this first time round. However I have no worries about repeating myself at your request.
Quote
In describing a television broadcast which slammed libel upon libel hardly bothering with libellous innuendo ... it was immediately apparent that open season had certainly been declared on the McCanns and their friends ... that is if it had ever been closed.
Read carefully what I actually said about that ...
"With the worst type of accusation being banded about with unreconstructed viciousness." ... which does not match your paraphrased version of what you say I said.
I do wish you were able to present your case without the necessity for invention.
However while reading the transcript yet again to refresh on the libellous accusations being reiterated, the reputations being trashed with "unreconstructed viciousness" and the embellishing of quite a few of the more scurrilous myths, I also read the header on the site.
Which proudly quotes from the Portuguese Constitution as follows ... 1.Everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination 2.Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of censorship.
Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, Article 37.º
However the Constitution consists of much more than Goncalo Amaral's freedom of expression and thus the freedom apparently enjoyed by television panellists to destroy the good name of whoever may take the fancy of the moment.
It includes ...
Article 16
Scope and sense of fundamental rights
1. The fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution do not exclude any others contained in applicable laws and rules of international law.
2. The constitutional and legal precepts relating to fundamental rights must be interpreted and integrated in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
http://www.parlamento.pt/Legislacao/Paginas/ConstituicaoRepublicaPortuguesa.aspx#art37
Perhaps the television panellists et al should consider tempering their enthusiasm until they see how the McCanns might react to the rights enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic which incorporate the guarantee of the implementation of International law.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7992.msg389157#msg389157 End quote
The McCann's went through the court system in Portugal, in search of revenge and money, against Amaral.
They lost.
Perhaps you should research how the Portuguese legal system deals with such cases, when a party seeks to set aside a verdict.
It would help.
Again, I find your closeness to all things McCann, quite strange.
-
So what was the key to the success of the appeal then?
Very good question and one that shouldn't be answered lightly, but I was tending to think it was assuming that the pans on the balance start off evenly when in fact by law the right to a good name has an initial value.
Everyone has the right to a good name and no amount of freedom of speech can take that away.
-
Your mantra again.
It's the truth.
You need to accept it, then you might make progress in this case.
-
The McCann's went through the court system in Portugal, in search of revenge and money, against Amaral.
They lost.
Perhaps you should research how the Portuguese legal system deals with such cases, when a party seeks to set aside a verdict.
It would help.
Again, I find your closeness to all things McCann, quite strange.
it isnt finished yet....your opinion re posters closeness to the mccanns is ridiculously stupid
-
it isnt finished yet....your opinion re posters closeness to the mccanns is ridiculously stupid
They will fail.
The second is obvious. IMHO, naturally. 8(0(*
-
Everyone has the right to a good name and no amount of right to freedom of speech can take that away.
-
Everyone has the right to a good name and no amount of right to freedom of speech can take that away.
They lost that, when they left their children to go out to socialize, leaving their children defenseless.
-
They lost that, when they left their children to go out to socialize, leaving their children defenseless.
you are wrong....they still have the right not to be defamed...how little you undersatnd
-
They lost that, when they left their children to go out to socialize, leaving their children defenseless.
Have you ever done something wrong? Does that mean we can accuse you of every crime under the sun if you answered "Yes"?
-
you are wrong....they still have the right not to be defamed...how little you undersatnd
Just read the Court judgement, which will not be discarded.
-
Have you ever done something wrong? Does that mean we can accuse you of every crime under the sun if you answered "Yes"?
Try to do your homework as regards abandonment .
The Portuguese ex-Minister was very clear.
-
So what was the key to the success of the appeal then?
The ruling on GA's need to keep secrecy after retirement.
-
the ECHR which limits freedom of speech in respect to the rights and good name of others
You have failed to address the question posed.
Try again.
-
The ruling on GA's need to keep secrecy after retirement.
The key to success of the appeal was the ruling on GA's need to keep secrecy after retirement, eh...? &%+((£
-
The key to success of the appeal was the ruling on GA's need to keep secrecy after retirement, eh...? &%+((£
Need and lack of need.
-
If there is no evidence of "woke and wandered" I would imagine that a missing child might be an indication of abduction.
So there is evidence (indication) of an abduction then. Madeleine is missing.
-
He wasn't the only one;
Thus, at around 9pm, her husband went to the apartment to make sure the twins, as well as Madeleine, were OK, then he went back to the restaurant. Her husband said that the children were doing well and that he had bumped into the person with whom he had played tennis, a person who has two children. At the same time, one of the group of friends, Russell, went to see his children, without checking on the interviewee's children.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
I double checked this and Kate is recorded as saying "Around 9.30pm was the time the interviewee should have gone to see her children, but her friend Matt (a member of the group) had just done a check in his apartment then gone to the interviewee's. He had entered the apartment by a glass sliding side door, that was always unlocked and once inside had not gone into the children's bedroom. He only looked through the door, and did not hear any noise. He went back to the restaurant and said that everything was fine. "
The sentence which precedes this "At the same time, one of the group of friends, Russell, went to see his children, without checking on the interviewee's children. " is clearly meant to be part of the first quoted paragraph.
This just goes to show the difficulty of having an interpreter who doesn't understand Kate's dialect very well, for what is translated from the Portuguese back to English does not flow like Kate telling the story IMO. That is definitely a translation error IMO.
The reason I am revisiting this thread is that I am discussing this video with an English and Portuguese speaking person who raised the video with me, and I recognised it as the same video as I had already critiqued in this thread.
-
I'm not trying to say anything, just pointing out what Kate McCann said.
It is clearly not what she said for the statement is written in Portuguese. It reflects the difficulty of the interpreter.
-
Looking at all the statements made on 4th May only two people mention Matthew's check at around 9pm; Matthew himself and Russell. There's no 'clearly' involved, the assertion of translation errors is based on no evidence whatsoever.
That observation is really important in the construction of a theory as to what is happening at the time. So Matt and Russell organise this spur of the moment check which includes the rounding up of the Payne family. What sort of relationship is this that one goes to round up the stragglers? Why? why? why was this done? And even after that, the results of Matt's check was not sufficient for Gerry, and just as well for Gerry finds the internal door moved to a more open position than they had left it, suggesting someone was in the room (with hindsight).
If The Tanner sighting is the innocent Crechedad who the heck moved the bedroom door?
-
That observation is really important in the construction of a theory as to what is happening at the time. So Matt and Russell organise this spur of the moment check which includes the rounding up of the Payne family. What sort of relationship is this that one goes to round up the stragglers? Why? why? why was this done? And even after that, the results of Matt's check was not sufficient for Gerry, and just as well for Gerry finds the internal door moved to a more open position than they had left it, suggesting someone was in the room (with hindsight).
If The Tanner sighting is the innocent Crechedad who the heck moved the bedroom door?
According to Gerry, Matthew and Kate the door moved three times; between 8.30 and 9.05, between 9.05 and 9.30 and between 9.30 and 10.00. Explain that!
-
According to Gerry, Matthew and Kate the door moved three times; between 8.30 and 9.05, between 9.05 and 9.30 and between 9.30 and 10.00. Explain that!
Well in my theory, slowly developing, one is taboo, one is untrue and one is Madeleine. All IMO.
-
Which one is untrue?
-
Which one is untrue?
How many clues do you need?
-
None I can explain the 3 door moves.
-
That observation is really important in the construction of a theory as to what is happening at the time. So Matt and Russell organise this spur of the moment check which includes the rounding up of the Payne family. What sort of relationship is this that one goes to round up the stragglers? Why? why? why was this done? And even after that, the results of Matt's check was not sufficient for Gerry, and just as well for Gerry finds the internal door moved to a more open position than they had left it, suggesting someone was in the room (with hindsight).
If The Tanner sighting is the innocent Crechedad who the heck moved the bedroom door?
In polite society in the UK, Rob, one does not start their meal until everyone is seated and served. The men especially were probably ravenously hungry. They probably wouldn't start until the Paynes arrived.
It seems that Matt was a willing go-fer. Your seeming thoughts are possible, but please bear in mind the innocent reason that he probably went.
-
None I can explain the 3 door moves.
Have a go then and compare that to Amaral's theory.
-
In polite society in the UK, Rob, one does not start their meal until everyone is seated and served. The men especially were probably ravenously hungry. They probably wouldn't start until the Paynes arrived.
It seems that Matt was a willing go-fer. Your seeming thoughts are possible, but please bear in mind the innocent reason that he probably went.
So was the fact that Matt gone going to interfere with the ordering, or was it OK to order for he had been there for a while and then left again?
-
Have a go then and compare that to Amaral's theory.
Post for you on my theory thread.
-
So was the fact that Matt gone going to interfere with the ordering, or was it OK to order for he had been there for a while and then left again?
I cant be sure what happened, but the norm is to wait for all to seated before eating. If they had no idea when The Paynes were arriving, they could give their orders to the waiter, but I doubt that they would set the order going.
Presumably they had three or four courses... so starters first which might be hot (soup likely) or cold.
-
I cant be sure what happened, but the norm is to wait for all to seated before eating. If they had no idea when The Paynes were arriving, they could give their orders to the waiter, but I doubt that they would set the order going.
Presumably they had three or four courses... so starters first which might be hot (soup likely) or cold.
They only talk about starters and mains.
-
Starters were ordered at 9
Tapas from our patio doors, we can see when anybody else goes down there, because the original table was booked for eight thirty, erm, we were a bit later that night and it was about quarter to and we saw Gerry and Kate down there and so we locked up, went round and joined them at the table.
Now I don't recall seeing Jane and Russell there, but I'm told that Jane was there at the time as well. But we got there and sort of chatted and then Russell arrived. And we were all there, apart from Dave and Fiona and Fiona's mother, Dianne, at sort of five to nine, and they were, they were always sort of fairly relaxed and sort of a bit late and disorganised, I mean, that's a bit unfair, but they were certainly, they'd always be pretty much the last to arrive, they were always late for most things and you could see the light on in their apartment, you could see it from the Tapas and you could see them moving around so you knew they were still there. And so I decided that I'd go back and short of chivvy them along, because I felt a bit bad that, you know, there's just us in this restaurant, as there had been most of the week, there weren't often, erm, on one night they had a quiz and there were a few sort of more tables, erm, around that were occupied, but most of the time it was just us and I felt a bit bad that we said we'd be there at half eight and, you know, it was getting later and later and it was now coming to nine and we hadn't even got the table there to get ready to order, but by this time in the week we knew what we were going to order,
so I told Rach, you know, I'll have whatever it was, I think it was, erm, probably sardines because, you know, they were pretty good, erm, so I put my order in for her to order if the waiter came back and went to try and sort of chivvy them along. But as I was leaving the Tapas area, you know, and their light going off and knowing that they were coming down and on their way, and on my way up, about at that top corner before you turn left to get round the back, as you go up the top of the hill, we sort of passed on the way down and they were on their way to the restaurant, but it seemed a bit silly not to go ahead and just sort of check on Grace, even though we'd only been down there about fifteen minutes, but that was sort of a convenient time to go and do it. So I went and listened, I went, I found the time, because we'd only just been in there about fifteen minutes ago, and I just listened outside her shutters, so I just passed along that wall that goes to the two, sort of to the McCANN's apartment, so I listened outside our shutters and went along to their shutter and had a listen out there, not because I'd been asked to, but, or it's not the sort of thing you think about, it's just kind of, erm,'.http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
-
Interesting it has gone up to 17 out of 19 now from the report 15 out of 19 alleles. The thing is it it was clearly a mixed sample with 3 -5 peoples DNA all mixed.
THis reference of Mr. Levy about hte report signed by more than 10 FSS specialists is completly fake IMO and was done after I cut all contacts with him.
-
THis reference of Mr. Levy about hte report signed by more than 10 FSS specialists is completly fake IMO and was done after I cut all contacts with him.
Is this the interim report claimed by amaral.
-
Is this the interim report claimed by amaral.
Expect your answer sometime in the next decade.
-
Expect your answer sometime in the next decade.
I already thought there was no interim report.....the findings claimed seemed exactly the same as the actual report
-
I already thought there was no interim report.....the findings claimed seemed exactly the same as the actual report
Who actually says they saw the interim report? It could be a complete non event.
-
Who actually says they saw the interim report? It could be a complete non event.
as I remeber it is not anon event...amaral claimed there was an interim report which supported the prescence of maddies dna but the actual report backtracked
-
as I remeber it is not anon event...amaral claimed there was an interim report which supported the prescence of maddies dna but the actual report backtracked
Did the FSS confirm they sent an interim report?
-
Did the FSS confirm they sent an interim report?
Not that I'm aware of
-
Not that I'm aware of
So could it be a bluff on the part of GA then.