Heribertos take on 'Persons of Interest'.

[stephen25000]

"Finger Print on the inside."  Don't exaggerate.  This is how Myths are born.

I have just read Heriberto Janosch's 7 so called key points on his blog.

They are intrinsically supposition and that would not stand up in a court of law.

e.g.'s  'The Smiths family saw the abductor carrying Madeleine at approximately 22:05 hours,'

HOW DO WE KNOW IT WAS AN ABDUCTOR ?

'Jane Tanner saw the abductor carrying Madeleine at approximately 21:50 hours,'

Again, HOW DO WE KNOW IT WAS AN ABDUCTOR ?

Likewise, the lack of corroborating D.N.A. evidence does not preclude anything happening in the apartment. The apartment was messed up by the Mccanns and associates before the police even got there.

[Benice]

I have just read Heriberto Janosch's 7 so called key points on his blog.

They are intrinsically supposition and that would not stand up in a court of law.

e.g.'s  'The Smiths family saw the abductor carrying Madeleine at approximately 22:05 hours,'

HOW DO WE KNOW IT WAS AN ABDUCTOR ?

'Jane Tanner saw the abductor carrying Madeleine at approximately 21:50 hours,'

Again, HOW DO WE KNOW IT WAS AN ABDUCTOR ?

Likewise, the lack of corroborating D.N.A. evidence does not preclude anything happening in the apartment. The apartment was messed up by the Mccanns and associates before the police even got there.

It wasn't a crime scene whilst Madeleine was still being searched for by her parents and their friends.   It was only after she wasn't found by them  that it became one.

However, it was definitely a crime scene by the time the GNR arrived.   It should have been cleared and cordoned off at that moment.  They failed to do that and allowed all and sundry to continue to enter, including dogs who left masses of hairs around the place. 

[Heriberto Janosch]

Why I think the crime was an abduction by a stranger to the McCann and their seven adult holiday friends?

The first thing I did was a system analysis of all the witness statements made about what happened that night between 20:50 and 22:10.

It is normal to find inaccuracies in a single witness statement. So a system analysis allows you to do a global insight of all the situation, adjusting normal discrepancies between statements, or between statements and given physical or psychosocial conditions.

Each statement is a component of the system, and there exists a physical and psychosocial environment too, and you have to consider the interactions between all of them to gain insight, to discover the mechanism of what really happened.

That is why I went to Praia da Luz 3 times, a total of 26 days, not to interview witnesses, but to gain insight of the physical and psychosocial aspects of the environment.

I knew that in a system analysis a lot of minor discrepancies emerge. Even I knew that, given the quantity of witnesses involved, I would find a few major discrepancies. It is absolutely normal.

I found two major discrepancies:

The first: "When he arrived there, by vehicle, at around 21:10, he remembers that next to the Tapas reception, he saw a vehicle [...] A few minutes later, when it was around 21H20, he heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few meters away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared." Arlindo Epifanio Goncalves Fernandes Peleja (PJ files pages 471 to 473).

The second: Jane passing near Gerry and Jes.

But these are two normal, though major, discrepancies. I am interested in the global situation, which I can adjust from all the testimonies. The major discrepancies, if in a normal quantity, can be discarded, and the minor ones, if in a normal quantity, adjusted. This was I found here.

You can take an isolated single major discrepancy, even a minor one, and make a world of it, a total conspiracy. You have to study the complete system.

(But it is very interesting that I never heard nobody saying "Why Arlindo Peleja was lying about the times? To whom was he covering up? Were all the Tapas Bar employees accomplices of the crime?" ... and so on).

So I took the global picture, and I was unable to explain it without an abductor who was an stranger to the McCann and their seven adult holiday friends.

(I do not believe neither in extraterrestrial visitors nor in parapsychological bilocations).

So, I do not want to lose more time discussing this, I prefer to do my very modest contribution to find who was the abductor.

Heri.         

[stephen25000]

Why I think the crime was an abduction by a stranger to the McCann and their seven adult holiday friends?

The first thing I did was a system analysis of all the witness statements made about what happened that night between 20:50 and 22:10.

It is normal to find inaccuracies in a single witness statement. So a system analysis allows you to do a global insight of all the situation, adjusting normal discrepancies between statements, or between statements and given physical or psychosocial conditions.

Each statement is a component of the system, and there exists a physical and psychosocial environment too, and you have to consider the interactions between all of them to gain insight, to discover the mechanism of what really happened.

That is why I went to Praia da Luz 3 times, a total of 26 days, not to interview witnesses, but to gain insight of the physical and psychosocial aspects of the environment.

I knew that in a system analysis a lot of minor discrepancies emerge. Even I knew that, given the quantity of witnesses involved, I would find a few major discrepancies. It is absolutely normal.

I found two major discrepancies:

The first: "When he arrived there, by vehicle, at around 21:10, he remembers that next to the Tapas reception, he saw a vehicle [...] A few minutes later, when it was around 21H20, he heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few meters away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared." Arlindo Epifanio Goncalves Fernandes Peleja (PJ files pages 471 to 473).

The second: Jane passing near Gerry and Jes.

But these are two normal, though major, discrepancies. I am interested in the global situation, which I can adjust from all the testimonies. The major discrepancies, if in a normal quantity, can be discarded, and the minor ones, if in a normal quantity, adjusted. That it was I found here.

You can take a single major discrepancy, even a minor one, and make a world of it, a total conspiracy. It is very interesting that I never heard nobody saying "Why Arlindo Peleja was lying about the times? To whom was he covering up? Were all the Tapas Bar employees accomplices of the crime?" ... and so on.

So I took the global picture, and I was unable to explain it without an abductor who was an stranger to the McCann and their seven adult holiday friends.

(I do not believe neither in extraterrestrial visitors nor in parapsychological bilocations).

So, I do not want to lose more time discussing this, I prefer to do my very modest contribution to find who was the abductor.

Heri.         

There are several problems with your analysis.

First of all, your default position is abduction.

As regards the the results of the D.N.A., and the lack of cadaver residues, merely because the results are inconclusive, does not mean they should be discounted.

Trying to blind people with science as you do on your blog, with images of phosphates, nucleic acids, the structure of the double helix, etc., is irrelevant.

Also, as I stated earlier, why haven't you done an analysis of the Mccanns and their associates behaviour ?

[Heriberto Janosch]

There are several problems with your analysis.

First of all, your default position is abduction.

As regards the the results of the D.N.A., and the lack of cadaver residues, merely because the results are inconclusive, does not mean they should be discounted.

Trying to blind people with science as you do on your blog, with images of phosphates, nucleic acids, the structure of the double helix, etc., is irrelevant.

Also, as I stated earlier, why haven't you done an analysis of the Mccanns and their associates behaviour ?

Abduction is not the default, it is the only plausible after discarding the rest of hypothesis.

"blind people with science"? ... Surely you prefer to enlight people with your conspiracies theories.

Eddie and Keela did not find any proof, as nothing resulted from the DNA analysis. Stop.

I made the analysis of the McCann and their holiday group behaviours, also in the system context, and did not find anything out of normal. I considered, of course, the acute stress Gerry and Kate were suffering. The major stress in the rest was surely for Jane.

And please forgive me, stephen25000, if I will not write more on the subject, I have better things to do ... Heri.

 

[stephen25000]

Abduction is not the default, it is the only plausible after discarding the rest of hypothesis.

"blind people with science"? ... Surely you prefer to enlight people with your conspiracies theories.

Eddie and Keela did not find any proof, as nothing resulted from the DNA analysis. Stop.

I made the analysis of the McCann and their holiday group behaviours, also in the system context, and did not find anything out of normal. I considered, of course, the acute stress Gerry and Kate were suffering. The major stress in the rest was surely for Jane.

And please forgive me, stephen25000, if I will not write more on the subject, I have better things to do ... Heri.

Sorry Heri, I disagree strongly.

Clearly you believe in abduction, yet there is no evidence to back it up. To prove abduction facts and evidence are required, there are none

The spurious sightings add nothing, they do not prove abduction.

Why did you need to show the structure of organic molecules when it adds nothing to the issue and would only be recognized by those having a knowledge of biochemistry ?

The behaviour of the Mccanns was certainly not normal, as has been pointed out by many observers. Your viewing it as normal is your subjective viewpoint, no more.

As to tanner  ???

I don't believe in conspiracies, but from my experiences of human behaviour , people will sometimes do extraordinary things to cover up for situations  they didn't expect or control. It is called self protection.

Cue the recent events in the cover up and then exposed deaths in NHS hospitals. in the UK.

[Eleanor]

Abduction is not the default, it is the only plausible after discarding the rest of hypothesis.

"blind people with science"? ... Surely you prefer to enlight people with your conspiracies theories.

Eddie and Keela did not find any proof, as nothing resulted from the DNA analysis. Stop.

I made the analysis of the McCann and their holiday group behaviours, also in the system context, and did not find anything out of normal. I considered, of course, the acute stress Gerry and Kate were suffering. The major stress in the rest was surely for Jane.

And please forgive me, stephen25000, if I will not write more on the subject, I have better things to do ... Heri.

And I agree with that.  They want to know what we think, and then trash it, even from experts.

[AnneGuedes]

people will sometimes do extraordinary things to cover up for situations  they didn't expect or control. It is called self protection.

Yes and there's no need of machinery, double helix and high definition surveying to understand that. Just an open mind.
The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk.

[Eleanor]

And another possibly really interesting thread derailed.  I should think Heri, who actually has hard gained knowledge of the case, and the expertise, has departed in disgust.
And God knows why I am still here.

[Rachel Granada]

Heriberto Janosch.

Precisely what exactly are your qualifications in investigative police procedures ?

And what are yours, stephen? As you seem to think you know better than the Portuguese Attorney General.....

[Redblossom]

Why I think the crime was an abduction by a stranger to the McCann and their seven adult holiday friends?

The first thing I did was a system analysis of all the witness statements made about what happened that night between 20:50 and 22:10.

It is normal to find inaccuracies in a single witness statement. So a system analysis allows you to do a global insight of all the situation, adjusting normal discrepancies between statements, or between statements and given physical or psychosocial conditions.

Each statement is a component of the system, and there exists a physical and psychosocial environment too, and you have to consider the interactions between all of them to gain insight, to discover the mechanism of what really happened.

That is why I went to Praia da Luz 3 times, a total of 26 days, not to interview witnesses, but to gain insight of the physical and psychosocial aspects of the environment.

I knew that in a system analysis a lot of minor discrepancies emerge. Even I knew that, given the quantity of witnesses involved, I would find a few major discrepancies. It is absolutely normal.

I found two major discrepancies:

The first: "When he arrived there, by vehicle, at around 21:10, he remembers that next to the Tapas reception, he saw a vehicle [...] A few minutes later, when it was around 21H20, he heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few meters away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared." Arlindo Epifanio Goncalves Fernandes Peleja (PJ files pages 471 to 473).

The second: Jane passing near Gerry and Jes.

But these are two normal, though major, discrepancies. I am interested in the global situation, which I can adjust from all the testimonies. The major discrepancies, if in a normal quantity, can be discarded, and the minor ones, if in a normal quantity, adjusted. This was I found here.

You can take an isolated single major discrepancy, even a minor one, and make a world of it, a total conspiracy. You have to study the complete system.

(But it is very interesting that I never heard nobody saying "Why Arlindo Peleja was lying about the times? To whom was he covering up? Were all the Tapas Bar employees accomplices of the crime?" ... and so on).

So I took the global picture, and I was unable to explain it without an abductor who was an stranger to the McCann and their seven adult holiday friends.

(I do not believe neither in extraterrestrial visitors nor in parapsychological bilocations).

So, I do not want to lose more time discussing this, I prefer to do my very modest contribution to find who was the abductor.

Heri.         

Struggling to understand what your point is here Heri. The chef was obviously mistaken about the time if you take other statements into account. And if he wasnt then others were mistaken about the times? Pass.

[Heriberto Janosch]

Struggling to understand what your point is here Heri. The chef was obviously mistaken about the time if you take other statements into account. And if he wasnt then others were mistaken about the times? Pass.

That is the point, Redblossom. If any person outside the Tapas9 failed when he/she gives a testimony, he/she obviously made an error in his/her remembering of the events (and I may agree it is so in many or all of the cases). But if the same type of error is committed by a Tapas9 member, he/she is covering up a crime ... Please, it makes me laugh.

Heri.
 

[Redblossom]

That is the point, Redblossom. If any person outside the Tapas9 failed when he/she gives a testimony, he/she obviously made an error in his/her remembering of the events (and I may agree it is so in many or all of the cases). But if the same type of error is committed by a Tapas9 member, he/she is covering up a crime ... Please, it makes me laugh.

Heri.

I see, thank you for explaining

[Sherlock Holmes]

Stephen25000 says:
As regards the the results of the D.N.A., and the lack of cadaver residues, merely because the results are inconclusive, does not mean they should be discounted.

Hello Stephen25000,

I don't know if this is so. Substandard scientific evidence is often ruled out by a judge.

This happened in the Barry George case, for example, where there was a big question mark over whether the gunshot residue found on George's clothing came from the weapon he was alleged to have used, or if it came from elsewhere.

The judge ruled in the retrial that there was a tiny chance it came from elsewhere - such as from the police officers who arrested him -  and therefore it was discounted as evidence. This was a major factor in the resulting acquittal.

[sadie]

Thanks Sherlock for reminding me of this thread, started by our Forensic and psychological expert, Heriberto Janosch

..........................................................................................

Come back Heriberto

Your work on this case is much appreciated.  Your reseach and its scientific approach is greatly valued.


I especially like your simple, but true comment, to Red

That is the point, Redblossom.
If any person outside the Tapas9 failed when he/she gives a testimony, he/she obviously made an error in his/her remembering of the events (and I may agree it is so in many or all of the cases). But if the same type of error is committed by a Tapas9 member, he/she is covering up a crime ... Please, it makes me laugh.

Take no notice of the wummers, Heri.  Lets look at what you were saying.

Why I think the crime was an abduction by a stranger to the McCann and their seven adult holiday friends?

The first thing I did was a system analysis of all the witness statements made about what happened that night between 20:50 and 22:10.

It is normal to find inaccuracies in a single witness statement. So a system analysis allows you to do a global insight of all the situation, adjusting normal discrepancies between statements, or between statements and given physical or psychosocial conditions.

Each statement is a component of the system, and there exists a physical and psychosocial environment too, and you have to consider the interactions between all of them to gain insight, to discover the mechanism of what really happened.

That is why I went to Praia da Luz 3 times, a total of 26 days, not to interview witnesses, but to gain insight of the physical and psychosocial aspects of the environment.

I knew that in a system analysis a lot of minor discrepancies emerge. Even I knew that, given the quantity of witnesses involved, I would find a few major discrepancies. It is absolutely normal.

I found two major discrepancies:

The first: "When he arrived there, by vehicle, at around 21:10, he remembers that next to the Tapas reception, he saw a vehicle [...] A few minutes later, when it was around 21H20, he heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few meters away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared." Arlindo Epifanio Goncalves Fernandes Peleja (PJ files pages 471 to 473).

The second: Jane passing near Gerry and Jes.

But these are two normal, though major, discrepancies. I am interested in the global situation, which I can adjust from all the testimonies. The major discrepancies, if in a normal quantity, can be discarded, and the minor ones, if in a normal quantity, adjusted. This was I found here.

You can take an isolated single major discrepancy, even a minor one, and make a world of it, a total conspiracy. You have to study the complete system.

(But it is very interesting that I never heard nobody saying "Why Arlindo Peleja was lying about the times? To whom was he covering up? Were all the Tapas Bar employees accomplices of the crime?" ... and so on).

So I took the global picture, and I was unable to explain it without an abductor who was an stranger to the McCann and their seven adult holiday friends.

(I do not believe neither in extraterrestrial visitors nor in parapsychological bilocations).

So, I do not want to lose more time discussing this, I prefer to do my very modest contribution to find who was the abductor.

Heri.         

I decided to re-look at the statement by Arlindo Epifanio Goncalves Fernandes Peleja

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARLINDO-PELEGA.htm

and found that it appears that it wasn't signed by the witness at all, which seemed strange.  Perhaps I have missed something?


It finished with:

.  And nothing more said, having read the statement, finds it in conformity and signs it;
. The document is duly signed by me ?

Tony Almeida, Inspector with this Policia Judiciaria.


.."duly signed by me ?   <<<< Whar does that mean?

And who is Inspector Tony (Antonio?) Almeida?

Not another name for Tavares de Almeida, is it  ?  I know that PT people have a number of names usually, reflecting the names of the people they are descended from .... and they can chose which combination they wish.

Couldn't be Tavares de Almeida, could it?  [Convicted of Torture and Officer with the PJ at Portimao, I believe]

It had been written by an Inspector Tony Almeida  >@@(*&)

http://stopthemyths.prophpbb.com/topic4555.html