Ricardo Paiva, "Kate McCann had a dream where she saw Maddie on a hillside"

[mercury]

But Mercury both individuals must have already been seperately fully interviewed by SY.

If you say so but theres no evidence they have been, besides, any such interview cannot possibly entail all questions that could be put to them unless SY have watched every tv interview and read all other interviews, 10 million quid or not

[pegasus]

If you say so but theres no evidence they have been, besides, any such interview cannot possibly entail all questions that could be put to them unless SY have watched every tv interview and read all other interviews, 10 million quid or not

IMO it is impossible that SY would spend millions and not bother to fully and properly interview seperately the two most important witnesses in great detail.

[mercury]

IMO it is impossible that SY would spend millions and not bother to fully and properly interview seperately the two most important witnesses in great detail.

No not really, depends on the remit!!

Besides, as I said, SY cannot have listened to and watched everything

Then again, perhaps they didnt need to, who knows hey?

[Eleanor]

@Anna
 “I’d like to make it absolutely clear that Kate has never had a dream that Maddie has been buried somewhere, and I don’t know if something’s been lost in interpretation, but that didn’t happen – not with those words, that’s for sure."

That press statement was technically true. Because the phonecall was IMO not about any dream, it was about an "awake fear".

IMO the word "nightmare" was probably used in the phonecall, meaning "an awake fear", but misinterpreted by Paiva as "asleep fear".

That makes sense.  Thanks for that.

[faithlilly]

That makes sense.  Thanks for that.

It would make sense if that's what was said. However it wasn't and you can't simply exchange what was said with what you believe fits better.

[Eleanor]

It would make sense if that's what was said. However it wasn't and you can't simply exchange what was said with what you believe fits better.

Do you know what was actually said?  If so, perhaps you could tell the rest of us.  We are simply trying to make sense of something that Paiva doesn't appear to have explained in context, or otherwise.

Personally, I like his "Dream" Statement.  He made himself look like a right prat.

[faithlilly]

Do you know what was actually said?  If so, perhaps you could tell the rest of us.  We are simply trying to make sense of something that Paiva doesn't appear to have explained in context, or otherwise.

Personally, I like his "Dream" Statement.  He made himself look like a right prat.

I know exactly what you know and that is what was said in court. Tempting as it is to put your own spin on it Pavia knew exactly what Kate told him, context and all. Whether you or anyone else feel that this was an absurd reason to change the investigation's direction is another matter entirely.

[Eleanor]

I know exactly what you know and that is what was said in court. Tempting as it is to put your own spin on it Pavia knew exactly what Kate told him, context and all. Whether you or anyone else feel that this was an absurd reason to change the investigation's direction is another matter entirely.

What Paiva said was Hearsay.  He has no proof of what Kate actually said.  Kindly put, I think he misunderstood.  But as I said, can you produce proof of what Kate said?

[faithlilly]

What Paiva said was Hearsay.  He has no proof of what Kate actually said.  Kindly put, I think he misunderstood.  But as I said, can you produce proof of what Kate said?

I think you misunderstand what hearsay means Eleanor. Pavia received a direct call from Kate. He wasn't told about it by a third party so how in heaven's name can it be hearsay ?

[Eleanor]

I think you misunderstand what hearsay means Eleanor. Pavia received a direct call from Kate. He wasn't told about it by a third party so how in heaven's name can it be hearsay ?

I don't think so, Faith.  He said Kate said.  That is Hearsay.

[Carana]

I think you misunderstand what hearsay means Eleanor. Pavia received a direct call from Kate. He wasn't told about it by a third party so how in heaven's name can it be hearsay ?

I'd be interested in JP's view.

For the moment, I think that Eleanor is correct - i.e., that it's hearsay.

Not that Paiva heard it from a different party, but that there was no direct proof presented as to what Kate is alleged to have said. If the phone conversation had been recorded, or an email / fax / letter presented, then that would presumably have counted as substantiated evidence. Not that this was a criminal court case anyway.

I've never understood the big deal about it. So what if Kate had had a nightmare that her child could have been dumped in x, y or z location? She could have had a nightmare about a masked pygmy or an alien abduction... what was being read into this?

There's ample room for a "misunderstanding" about a dream / nightmare / some psychic's vision / a potentially inadequately investigated possibility... whatever.

[Carana]

What Paiva said was Hearsay.  He has no proof of what Kate actually said.  Kindly put, I think he misunderstood.  But as I said, can you produce proof of what Kate said?

This doesn't cover hearsay evidence in PT...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay

However, an interesting aspect is that Amaral's blur over when he was actually present - and his rudimentary understanding of English anyway - would make many of his assertions double-hearsay, wouldn't it?

[Eleanor]

This doesn't cover hearsay evidence in PT...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay

However, an interesting aspect is that Amaral's blur over when he was actually present - and his rudimentary understanding of English anyway - would make many of his assertions double-hearsay, wouldn't it?

"Legal Burden of Proof"  just about covers it.  Hearsay notwithstanding. 
Paiva said that Kate said, but he never said what Kate actually said.

And No, it isn't actually important.

[faithlilly]

"Legal Burden of Proof"  just about covers it.  Hearsay notwithstanding. 
Paiva said that Kate said, but he never said what Kate actually said.

And No, it isn't actually important.

Agreed. What is interesting however is Gerry so vehemently denied that Kate had had a dream

[Eleanor]

Agreed. What is interesting however is Gerry so vehemently denied that Kate had had a dream

Because she didn't?  Or even say such to Paiva?

Paiva attempted to put this across as Guilt because Kate had killed Madeleine.  What did you expect Gerry to say just after he had heard this bizarre revelation in Court?  Which everyone else had heard.

Paiva is a plonker if he thinks guilt can be established on a dream.  Hardly a scientific conclusion, is it.