Could Madeleine have been abducted between 9.30 and 10.00?

[Carana]

Carana:

In his profile he refers to cases, but in the report he clarifies that he is referring to 200 case searches.

I would dispute that that is 'clarification'.

I think that case searches is synonymous with cases.

For example, the combined effort to find Madeleine could be regarded as a single case or a single case search.

Beyond dispute, in the arguido interviews, it was put to Kate and Gerry that 'Eddie had never been wrong in over 200 cases'.

ETA: You can't equate case searches with cases, but you can the other way.

That is to say that individual searches within a case cannot be counted as 'cases', but you can the other way.

Ok. Perhaps clarification wasn't the best term.


I suppose it clarified matters for me as I'd wondered for ages whether he meant "case" in the sense of "instance" (200 opportunities to alert), 200 specific searches within a criminal investigation* or 200 criminal investigations.

ETA: or within a far fewer amount of criminal cases... Not just one.

But 200 opportunities to alert seemed too low and 200 investigations seemed too high.

I'd agree that it's ambiguous and the initial PJ team seem to have assumed that he meant 200 separate criminal investigations and that Eddie (RIP) had somehow contributed to solving them all.

Aside from what Grime actually meant by "case" - all he seems to have been saying is that the dog hadn't falsely alerted to a recent leftover pork chop or a dead hedgehog.


Grime wasn't clear and the PJ were under pressure. Grime was also not clear that Eddie would react to decomposing human substances which didn't necessarily involve a corpse.


As an aside, I'd found an article the other day (which I can no longer find) in which Eddie's nose was supposed to have led to 200 convictions...

[AnneGuedes]

It's not about the size of the mountain if the evidence - sorry, I keep forgetting - admissible evidence is circumstantial. If the AG currently doesn't think there's enough evidence to secure a conviction, he's not going to get them charged until he feels there is.  I don't know how I can put it any more simply. Before you say, "this is the same AG who found no practise of any crime, etc." yes, it is the same one. The same one who also said this in his archiving summary but it tends to be ignored/forgotten about by those of you who have pink candyfloss in your eyes.

E – About the interest of the reconstruction
 
Taking into account that there were certain points in the arguidos' and witnesses' statements that revealed, apparently at least, contradiction or that lacked physical confirmation, it was decided to carry out the "reconstruction of the fact", a diligence that is consecrated in article 150 of the Penal Process Code in the sense of duly clarifying, on the very location of the facts, the following very important details, among others:
 
1 – The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;
 
2 – The situation concerning the window to the bedroom where Madeleine slept, together with the twins, which was open, according to Kate. It seemed then necessary to clarify if there was a draught, since movement of the curtains and pressure under the bedroom door are mentioned, which, eventually, could be verified through the reconstitution;
 
3 – The establishment of a timeline and of a line of effective checking on the minors that were left alone in the apartments, given that, if it is believed that such checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, at least, very difficult to reunite conditions for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said abductor, with the child, namely through a window with scarce space. It is added that the supposed abductor could only pass, through that window, holding the minor in a different position (vertical) from the one that witness JANE TANNER saw (horizontal);
 
4 – What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7 p.m. – the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time, in her apartment, by a different person (David Payne) from her parents or siblings – and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy – at around 10 p.m.;
 
5 – The obvious and well-known advantages of immediate appreciation of evidence, or in other words, the fulfilment of the principle of contiguity of evidence in order to form a conviction, as firm as possible, about what was seen by Jane Tanner and the other interposers, and, eventually, to dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing [child's] parents.
 
In this sense, the legal procedures were followed, according to the norms and conventions that are in force, and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present inclusively appealing to solidarity with the McCann couple, as it is certain that since the beginning they adhered to that process diligence.
 
Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.
 
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
 
in: Processo 201/07.0 GALGS - Volume XVII - pages 4636-4638 (Public Prosecutor's Archiving Dispatch)

There are things about this 'document' that dont read right to me.  I have tried to google it, to check, but every website except two is Jill Haverns, aimoo, or Joana Morais.  It is reputed that at least one of those alters facts.  I do not know whether this is true, but I dont trust them.

The google page is flooded with Jill Havern pages and Joana Morais pages ... WHAT IS GOING ON?


Interestingly the only other two sites do not work.  These are:

1) Regrets and Ramblings, which I do trust .... but it takes you to another page?  Despite Google specifying it, there is nothing about this document on that page.  So why is there nothing on this page about this document when Google seems to think there is?  [Bren if you are reading, pls could you confirm, or otherwise, whether this document should have been there.  Catkins and Cath have my email address. ]

2) https://99.153.248.206:8888/freenet.../maddie.../pj-final-report.html which opens to "Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage"

So no-one can get an independant, as opposed to anti, copy of this document


JUST WHAT IS GOING ON?  Seems. once again, evidence is being supressed .. or altered


I hope I am wrong ... cos it is extemely dangerous to us all if I am right ... so many "facts" are being altered....  think Pat Brown especially.

Sadie, doubts and mysteries in this case are more than sufficient ! How can we ponder the few facts correctly if we wonder whether such translation (as crucial as the AG final document) is biased ?
I'm not sure I understand what worries you, don't you have access to the AG Portuguese original document (21 JUL 2008) ?

[sadie]

I do, but I have to trouble someone in PT who is seriously ill ... and I am not going to do that.

Unfortunately there is a language problem too >@@(*&)

[ferryman]

Carana:

In his profile he refers to cases, but in the report he clarifies that he is referring to 200 case searches.

I would dispute that that is 'clarification'.

I think that case searches is synonymous with cases.

For example, the combined effort to find Madeleine could be regarded as a single case or a single case search.

Beyond dispute, in the arguido interviews, it was put to Kate and Gerry that 'Eddie had never been wrong in over 200 cases'.

ETA: You can't equate case searches with cases, but you can the other way.

That is to say that individual searches within a case cannot be counted as 'cases', but you can the other way.

Ok. Perhaps clarification wasn't the best term.


I suppose it clarified matters for me as I'd wondered for ages whether he meant "case" in the sense of "instance" (200 opportunities to alert), 200 specific searches within a criminal investigation or 200 criminal investigations.

But 200 opportunities to alert seemed too low and 200 investigations seemed too high.

I'd agree that it's ambiguous and the initial PJ team seem to have assumed that he meant 200 separate criminal investigations and that Eddie (RIP) had somehow contributed to solving them all.

Aside from what Grime actually meant by "case" - all he seems to have been saying is that the dog hadn't falsely alerted to a recent leftover pork chop or a dead hedgehog.


Grime wasn't clear and the PJ were under pressure. Grime was also not clear that Eddie would react to decomposing human substances which didn't necessarily involve a corpse.


As an aside, I'd found an article the other day (which I can no longer find) in which Eddie's nose was supposed to have led to 200 convictions...

Yes, I remember you suggesting cases as a synonym of instances once before.

For me, what precludes that, is the words before, operational deployment and ...

To me, that is amenable to only one interpretation, two hundred separate cases.

And the other thing making me disinclined to give Grime benefit of doubt is his other claims, demonstrably untrue ...

[AnneGuedes]

I do, but I have to trouble someone in PT who is seriously ill ... and I am not going to do that.

Unfortunately there is a language problem too >@@(*&)

All I can do for you is to check how the passages you're doubting were translated. I can also translate them in French, if you're francophone.

[sadie]

I do, but I have to trouble someone in PT who is seriously ill ... and I am not going to do that.

Unfortunately there is a language problem too >@@(*&)

All I can do for you is to check how the passages you're doubting were translated. I can also translate them in French, if you're francophone.

Another Portuguese speaking friend has very kindly sent them to me, but they are refusing to allow me to paste them here.  However he says that the translation appears to correspond with yours.

Please accept my apology

sadie

[Redblossom]

I feel that pertinent to this discussion is Matthew Oldfield's check on the Mccann children at around 9.30pm that night.
I have some questions about this.

- Why did he do an internal check that night at that time, as opposed to external checks outside the children's bedroom window every other time, including earlier that night.

- Why, if deciding or being asked to do an internal check, did he not actually check? If his check was only for sounds, why the need to enter the apartment?

- Why did he, if wondering where Madeleine slept, and why did he wonder this? not look inside the children's bedroom properly, but rather go further out of his way to go and look inside the parents' bedroom to see if Madeleine was sleeping there?

His not sayng he felt any cold or draught from that room does suggest any abduction occurred after his visit though.

[amaraltheofficeboy]

I feel that pertinent to this discussion is Matthew Oldfield's check on the Mccann children at around 9.30pm that night.
I have some questions about this.

- Why did he do an internal check that night at that time, as opposed to external checks outside the children's bedroom window every other time, including earlier that night.

- Why, if deciding or being asked to do an internal check, did he not actually check? If his check was only for sounds, why the need to enter the apartment?

- Why did he, if wondering where Madeleine slept, and why did he wonder this? not look inside the children's bedroom properly, but rather go further out of his way to go and look inside the parents' bedroom to see if Madeleine was sleeping there?

fascinating questions - do you have the answers, in fact can anyone answer those pertinent points?

[peter claridge]

I feel that pertinent to this discussion is Matthew Oldfield's check on the Mccann children at around 9.30pm that night.
I have some questions about this.

- Why did he do an internal check that night at that time, as opposed to external checks outside the children's bedroom window every other time, including earlier that night.

- Why, if deciding or being asked to do an internal check, did he not actually check? If his check was only for sounds, why the need to enter the apartment?

- Why did he, if wondering where Madeleine slept, and why did he wonder this? not look inside the children's bedroom properly, but rather go further out of his way to go and look inside the parents' bedroom to see if Madeleine was sleeping there?

Is it because if he'd have checked at the window he would have seen it open due to Jane Tanner's claimed sighting of the abductor?

Is it because if he'd have entered the bedroom he would have noticed that Madeleine wasn't there due to Jane Tanner's claimed sighting of the abductor?

See above

[AnneGuedes]

I feel that pertinent to this discussion is Matthew Oldfield's check on the Mccann children at around 9.30pm that night.
I have some questions about this.

- Why did he do an internal check that night at that time, as opposed to external checks outside the children's bedroom window every other time, including earlier that night.

- Why, if deciding or being asked to do an internal check, did he not actually check? If his check was only for sounds, why the need to enter the apartment?

- Why did he, if wondering where Madeleine slept, and why did he wonder this? not look inside the children's bedroom properly, but rather go further out of his way to go and look inside the parents' bedroom to see if Madeleine was sleeping there?

His not sayng he felt any cold or draught from that room does suggest any abduction occurred after his visit though.

1) The window was supposed to be open, it would have been criminal from him not to alert about that (let's suppose he was asked to have checked on the MC kids to avoid neglect accusations).
2) He hoped to have the cake and eat it : internal check to skip the window issue and listening check to skip the Madeleine issue.
3) The poor guy was trapped with this undone bed under the window.

[amaraltheofficeboy]

just to clarify - are you or are you not anne guedes@aacg ?

[Redblossom]

Anne and Peter, I would tend to agree with those opinions. They, unfortunately, make sense.

[AnneGuedes]

just to clarify - are you or are you not anne guedes@aacg ?

Amaralseilàoque, this is an obsession or what ? Ask Gilet, he knows everything.

[amaraltheofficeboy]

just to clarify - are you or are you not anne guedes@aacg ?

Amaralseilàoque, this is an obsession or what ? Ask Gilet, he knows everything.

thankyou for your reply

[AnneGuedes]

Anne and Peter, I would tend to agree with those opinions. They, unfortunately, make sense.

I agree with the unfortunately and would like very much to read different points of view.
Yesterday I wrote I had been touched by Jane Tanner sobbing. Viewing that so-called reconstruction part, I was touched again. I'd like to know if I'm alone or not.