Author Topic: Podcasts by Mark Saunokonoko of 9News.  (Read 64291 times)

0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline niklasericson

Re: Podcasts by Mark Saunokonoko of 9News.
« Reply #90 on: March 10, 2019, 09:20:20 PM »

Kate said Madeleine wouldn't have gone through the patio doors and shut the curtain behind her, opened the child gate and shut it behind her opened the gate at the bottom of the steps and shut it behind her.   Also someone also said if Madeleine had gone out through the patio doors she would have been drawn to the lights of the Tapas and would have gone down to find her parents.    As for the front door did they find Madeleine's prints on it?
"Shut the curtains"?
A small child can easily go through and behind curtains without open them.
How do we know that the gates were closed and locked?
Any independent witnesses?
For some reasons the OC replaced the small gate with a big door after what happened and take a look at view from the top of the stairs, it would only take a second or two for a child to run out on the street, dark and with a restricted view a driver would have no chance to stop a car.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2019, 09:22:58 PM by niklasericson »

Offline G-Unit

Re: Podcasts by Mark Saunokonoko of 9News.
« Reply #91 on: March 10, 2019, 10:20:32 PM »
There was no first investigation if your reference is to the one led by Amaral.  The first investigation started in May 2007 ended with the archiving dispatch of 2008.

Amaral was sacked from the investigation and Almeida the author of the interim report in the PJ files left shortly thereafter leaving the threads to be picked up by Rebelo and his highly competent and perfectly qualified team for such an investigation.

Continuing on from what had gone on before ... the Rebelo team found there was no evidence and never had been which justified the path taken by their predecessors.
If there had been they would have continued on that path and invited Kate and Gerry back to Portugal ... which as arguidos they could not refuse to do ... and taken the process forward from there.

There was no evidence and never had been to justify that course of action. What evidence there was exonerated them ... which is why the public prosecutors said in effect that they never should have been made suspects in the first instance.

The tragedy of all this is that while police time and resources had been misdirected the focus of the police work on Madeleine was lost and goodness knows what initiatives on her behalf were missed.

I think the classic one being the time and effort spent analysing the phone traffic of the victims but apparently entirely ignoring phone traffic between burglars until it was taken up for investigation by Scotland Yard many years down the line.

The public prosecutors made it quite clear. When their friends refused to attend the reconstitution;

We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Accept nothing
Believe no-one
Confirm everything

Offline Brietta

Re: Podcasts by Mark Saunokonoko of 9News.
« Reply #92 on: March 10, 2019, 10:58:15 PM »
The public prosecutors made it quite clear. When their friends refused to attend the reconstitution;

We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Quote
To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated.
Portimão, 21.07.08
 
The Republic’s Prosecutor
 
(José de Magalhães e Menezes)
 
The Joint General Prosecutor
 
(João Melchior Gomes)
 
in: Processo 201/07.0 GALGS – Volume XVII – pages 4639-4649 (Public Prosecutor’s Archiving Dispatch)


What the friends chose to do was entirely a matter for them.  It in no way detracts from the prosecutors' declaration that the reasons the missing child's parents were made suspects in the first instance were entirely unsubstantiated on investigation as detailed above (for the umpteenth time).

In other words ... had the police initially done their job with a modicum of competence ... they would have been capable of ascertaining that before making Kate and Gerry official suspects.

That is a very big issue under any circumstances but in deflecting the investigation away from throwing everything into finding out what happened to Madeleine McCann it must rank as one of the major police mistakes ever in a missing child investigation due to the investigators being completely out of their depth.
The remit of Operation Grange is to investigate ...  "(as if the abduction occurred in the UK)"

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Podcasts by Mark Saunokonoko of 9News.
« Reply #93 on: March 10, 2019, 11:14:18 PM »
The public prosecutors made it quite clear. When their friends refused to attend the reconstitution;

We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Which is the biggest load of nonsense I’ve ever read, frankly.  A reconstitution could in no way have proven their innocence and to claim it could is disingenuous claptrap of the highest order.
"The answer is that no-one here believes the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance" - G-Unit.

Offline barrier

Re: Podcasts by Mark Saunokonoko of 9News.
« Reply #94 on: March 11, 2019, 06:51:01 AM »
Which is the biggest load of nonsense I’ve ever read, frankly.  A reconstitution could in no way have proven their innocence and to claim it could is disingenuous claptrap of the highest order.
Of course you knowledge of such things is of an experience equal to and above that of the PJ at the time.
    Can you build an Emerald city with these grains of sand?       


Offline G-Unit

Re: Podcasts by Mark Saunokonoko of 9News.
« Reply #95 on: March 11, 2019, 07:05:09 AM »
Quote
To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated.
Portimão, 21.07.08
 
The Republic’s Prosecutor
 
(José de Magalhães e Menezes)
 
The Joint General Prosecutor
 
(João Melchior Gomes)
 
in: Processo 201/07.0 GALGS – Volume XVII – pages 4639-4649 (Public Prosecutor’s Archiving Dispatch)


What the friends chose to do was entirely a matter for them.  It in no way detracts from the prosecutors' declaration that the reasons the missing child's parents were made suspects in the first instance were entirely unsubstantiated on investigation as detailed above (for the umpteenth time).

In other words ... had the police initially done their job with a modicum of competence ... they would have been capable of ascertaining that before making Kate and Gerry official suspects.

That is a very big issue under any circumstances but in deflecting the investigation away from throwing everything into finding out what happened to Madeleine McCann it must rank as one of the major police mistakes ever in a missing child investigation due to the investigators being completely out of their depth.

The situation, therefore, when the archiving dispatch was written was that the PJ couldn't prove guilt, but neither could the McCanns prove innocence. They weren't 'cleared', there was no evidence which exonerated them, it was stalemate. The PJ couldn't even identify the crime.
Accept nothing
Believe no-one
Confirm everything

Offline G-Unit

Re: Podcasts by Mark Saunokonoko of 9News.
« Reply #96 on: March 11, 2019, 07:13:45 AM »
Which is the biggest load of nonsense I’ve ever read, frankly.  A reconstitution could in no way have proven their innocence and to claim it could is disingenuous claptrap of the highest order.

That;s not the point. The point is that a prosecutor who thought that;

snip/
"What evidence there was exonerated them"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10605.75

wouldn't have written that paragraph.


 
Accept nothing
Believe no-one
Confirm everything

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Podcasts by Mark Saunokonoko of 9News.
« Reply #97 on: March 11, 2019, 07:20:29 AM »
Of course you knowledge of such things is of an experience equal to and above that of the PJ at the time.
It is plain common sense, if you can’t appreciate that, then I can’t help you.
"The answer is that no-one here believes the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance" - G-Unit.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Podcasts by Mark Saunokonoko of 9News.
« Reply #98 on: March 11, 2019, 07:25:12 AM »
That;s not the point. The point is that a prosecutor who thought that;

snip/
"What evidence there was exonerated them"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10605.75

wouldn't have written that paragraph.
The point is it was a damnfool stupid observation, written in a Portuguese judicial summary which just goes to show the level of understanding and intelligence  the McCanns have had to deal with pretty much from day one. IMO.
"The answer is that no-one here believes the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance" - G-Unit.

Offline Davel

Re: Podcasts by Mark Saunokonoko of 9News.
« Reply #99 on: March 11, 2019, 07:25:50 AM »
The latest podcast says Murat has been thoroughly investigated by Portuguese police... Has been awarded damages for being wrongly implicated in the case and has been cleared.... Why doesn't that apply to the mccanns
mods can delete posts but...
The moving finger writes and having writ moves on...
nor all thy piety nor wit can lure me back to alter but  a line..nor all thy tears wash away  a word of it

Offline Davel

Re: Podcasts by Mark Saunokonoko of 9News.
« Reply #100 on: March 11, 2019, 07:32:31 AM »
That;s not the point. The point is that a prosecutor who thought that;

snip/
"What evidence there was exonerated them"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10605.75

wouldn't have written that paragraph.

Are we back to the mccanns having to prove their innocence and not being entitled to the presumption of innocence
mods can delete posts but...
The moving finger writes and having writ moves on...
nor all thy piety nor wit can lure me back to alter but  a line..nor all thy tears wash away  a word of it

Offline G-Unit

Re: Podcasts by Mark Saunokonoko of 9News.
« Reply #101 on: March 11, 2019, 08:06:56 AM »
The point is it was a damnfool stupid observation, written in a Portuguese judicial summary which just goes to show the level of understanding and intelligence  the McCanns have had to deal with pretty much from day one. IMO.

Those damnfool stupid prosecutors who wrote an archiving dspatch upon which the McCanns based their claim of being cleared. Perhaps they should have read all of it before making that claim? As the SC judges pointed out; the contents didn't fit with the conclusion upon which the McCanns and their 'experts' relied.
Accept nothing
Believe no-one
Confirm everything

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Podcasts by Mark Saunokonoko of 9News.
« Reply #102 on: March 11, 2019, 08:11:27 AM »
Those damnfool stupid prosecutors who wrote an archiving dspatch upon which the McCanns based their claim of being cleared. Perhaps they should have read all of it before making that claim? As the SC judges pointed out; the contents didn't fit with the conclusion upon which the McCanns and their 'experts' relied.
It was all they had to work with and perhaps they hoped that the court would realise the stupidity or mendacity of that particular passage.  It would have been more honest and more logical if it had read
“We believe the main damage caused to our case against the McCanns was their failure to turn up to our reconstitution which we hoped would prove them guilty”. 
"The answer is that no-one here believes the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance" - G-Unit.

Offline Davel

Re: Podcasts by Mark Saunokonoko of 9News.
« Reply #103 on: March 11, 2019, 08:11:51 AM »
Those damnfool stupid prosecutors who wrote an archiving dspatch upon which the McCanns based their claim of being cleared. Perhaps they should have read all of it before making that claim? As the SC judges pointed out; the contents didn't fit with the conclusion upon which the McCanns and their 'experts' relied.

The SC judges read in the court transcripts that the dogs signalled cadaver odour in several places...were they aware this was not confirmed ....I think possibly not
mods can delete posts but...
The moving finger writes and having writ moves on...
nor all thy piety nor wit can lure me back to alter but  a line..nor all thy tears wash away  a word of it

Offline G-Unit

Re: Podcasts by Mark Saunokonoko of 9News.
« Reply #104 on: March 11, 2019, 08:43:23 AM »
Are we back to the mccanns having to prove their innocence and not being entitled to the presumption of innocence

No, it's not about that. It's about whether the public prosecutors declared them innocent, as they and their supporters claim or whether they didn't, as the SC judges ruled.

Article 277/1 says;

The Public Ministry shall, by dispatch, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that the crime was not confirmed, that the arguido did not practice it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmissible

Yipee! That does indeed suggest that they were cleared. The contents of the document say quite clearly, however, that they were not. That's why the SC judges said the case should have been archived ubder 277/2;

The investigation shall also be closed if it had not been possible for the Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence confirming the crime or who were the authors.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm

277/2 fits what the prosecutors actually said;

While it is an unavoidable fact that Madeleine disappeared from Apartment 5A of the 'Ocean Club', the manner and circumstances under which this happened are not - despite the numerous diligences made in that sense -, therefore the range of crimes that were indicated and referred to during the inquiry remains untouched.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

That means they didn't identify the crime. If they couldn't identify the crime they could  hardly say who did or didn't commit it. That would be saying "We don't know what happened to Madeleine but we know her parents didn't do it" That makes no sense.
'

Accept nothing
Believe no-one
Confirm everything