The timeline revisited

[G-Unit]

That's what I'm asking you!

The question is nonesensical then.

[Mr Gray]

Your explanation ignored the fact that Harrison contradicted himself only after the dogs alerted to places and items connected with the McCanns.

Your claim that "It was a relatively new idea that Harrison had come up with and had not been properly thought through" is just speculation.

I never said it wasn't but he contradicted himself. In fact other experts including prof Cassella... Grimed academic lead... Says the alerts must be corroborated

[Eleanor]

They certainly read enough into it to use it as an excuse to make the McCanns suspects.  A nonsense then and even more of a nonsense when the FSS results were explained properly and understood.

Two days before the Rules of Evidence changed.  "To Hasty" describes it perfectly.

[Mr Gray]

That’s a strawman argument. No investigating agencies, not even the PJ, believed the alerts on their own could be “proof”. This is why the FSS analysis became crucial for them.

Amaral and the PJ considered them proof... Fact

[Mr Gray]

Another area of British expertise where opinion changed.


Edited to add appeared to change between interim and final report.

No evidence it changed at all.

[G-Unit]

They certainly read enough into it to use it as an excuse to make the McCanns suspects.  A nonsense then and even more of a nonsense when the FSS results were explained properly and understood.

The McCanns were made arguidos because they could have incriminated themselves by answering the PJ's questions. As an arguida Kate McCann was not legally bound to answer. As a witness she would have been.

[Eleanor]

The McCanns were made arguidos because they could have incriminated themselves by answering the PJ's questions. As an arguida Kate McCann was not legally bound to answer. As a witness she would have been.

No she wouldn't.  Apart from the aforementioned  stairs of course.

[G-Unit]

No she wouldn't.  Apart from the aforementioned  stairs of course.

Witnesses in criminal investigations are legally bound to co-operate with the police and do not have the right to silence and face legal actions if they lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguido

[Brietta]

Another area of British expertise where opinion changed.


Edited to add appeared to change between interim and final report.

Whether "changed" or "appeared to change" really doesn't get you off the hook when it comes to providing a cite.  Please provide one.

[Vertigo Swirl]

The question is nonesensical then.

It was your statement that was nonsensical, my question merely highlighted that fact.

[Eleanor]

Witnesses in criminal investigations are legally bound to co-operate with the police and do not have the right to silence and face legal actions if they lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguido

Kate had already answered what questions she was asked.  So actually no need to make her an Arguida.

[G-Unit]

Kate had already answered what questions she was asked.  So actually no need to make her an Arguida.

She was questioned as a witness on 6th September and answered the questions asked. She was questioned as an arguida on 7th September and choose not to answer the questions asked on that occasion.

[Brietta]

Witnesses in criminal investigations are legally bound to co-operate with the police and do not have the right to silence and face legal actions if they lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguido

Indeed it would be a very foolish arguida who accepted everything the police were putting to her as the real deal when their ineptitude was so patently apparent.

SNIP
And so, for the record, this is where we stand on the supposed evidence against Kate and Gerry McCann.

There was never any DNA "proof" that Madeleine's body had been in the couple's hire car - that originated from a misinterpretation by the PJ of inconclusive findings by British forensics experts.

The full report indicates it was the supposed "scent of death" found in the apartment that led directly to the couple's naming as arguidos, but forensics experts have always argued for caution in interpreting sniffer dogs' reactions.

An American court case ruled this kind of evidence inadmissible last year after finding that three supposedly "specialist" dogs were incorrect between 62% and 78% of the time.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jul/23/madeleinemccann.portugal


Two days later as Eleanor says the McCanns would NEVER have been constituted arguidos for the simple reason the law was changed so that no-one could be made a suspect without supporting evidence.

The fact of the matter is that there never was or had been such evidence.

As far as Justice is concerned it was a shoddy move (no wonder Amaral is the self appointed expert in "scape-goats") and a shameful episode for the Portuguese.

[Brietta]

She was questioned as a witness on 6th September and answered the questions asked. She was questioned as an arguida on 7th September and choose not to answer the questions asked on that occasion.

It is worth recalling that the arguida Kate was subsequently found to be innocent of all accusations.

It is also worth recalling that the arguido Amaral was subsequently found to be guilty of the charge laid against him and as a result is a criminal with a criminal record.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

There is s contradiction as gunit has accepted.

Harrison said no inference from an alert without physical evidence... He contradicted himself... Fact

Can you post the comment that you believe contradicts this?

Nice to see you agree to be speculating above. I think it’s important to note that although you post “only facts” and “the truth” you admit that the conclusions you draw from the facts are merely speculative.