The archiving report ...

[DCI]

I take it you are talking here about Ferryman's obsession with the "no evidence" claim

Claim?

One of the prosecutors said at the first hearing into the injunction on Amaral's book that it is 50-50 whether Madeleine is alive or dead because there is no evidence the McCanns harmed Madeleine.  By inference we can extend the same status to Robert Murat.

Fact!

I'm unclear why you persist in accusing the Prosecutors of lying?

Mr Menezes was the first witness called at a libel trial brought by the McCanns against former police chief Goncalo Amaral. His book claimed Madeleine had died in the family's apartment in the holiday resort of Praia da Luz in May 2007.

But Mr Menezes said he thought the probability of Madeleine being alive was 50/50.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id296.html

[Albertini]

It is a fact that the prosecutor said it was 50:50.

Perhaps you'd care to bring Redblossom up to speed on that fact.

Then bring yourself up to speed on the fact that there is no evidence against the McCanns.

The prosecutors said that as well.

I can't speak for Redblossom but what i can say is that you said this:

"50-50 whether Madeleine is alive or dead because there is no evidence the McCanns harmed Madeleine"

Which isn't accurate.

He said it was 50:50 she was dead

He did not say (from the transcripts i can see) that he thought this because there is no evidence the McCann's harmed her.

[Albertini]

Mr Menezes was the first witness called at a libel trial brought by the McCanns against former police chief Goncalo Amaral. His book claimed Madeleine had died in the family's apartment in the holiday resort of Praia da Luz in May 2007.

But Mr Menezes said he thought the probability of Madeleine being alive was 50/50.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id296.html

And can you tell me why you think Menezez's opinion on this has any greater validity than Amaral's?

[Redblossom]

It is a fact that the prosecutor said it was 50:50.

Perhaps you'd care to bring Redblossom up to speed on that fact.

Then bring yourself up to speed on the fact that there is no evidence against the McCanns.

The prosecutors said that as well.

Now that is an example of an accurate and truthful post, with which I have no problem, unlike your previous one in which you fabricated what the prosecutor said. In fact, the sentence made no sense in any case, the question put was whether he thought Madeleine was dead or alive, nothing to do with whether he thought there was evidence of anyones guilt or innocence, so why you bothered is anyones guess.
LOL
Oh and I am up to speed thanks FM, the legal summary has been on the net for half a decade now

PS Albertini, post 16, precisely!

[DCI]

And can you tell me why you think Menezez's opinion on this has any greater validity than Amaral's?

I don't but he said it.

Paiva

4:12

jondipaolo:
Paiva: amaral's thesis has prevented other theories from being investigated.

This just shows the PJ's lack of joined up thinking and lack of training and lack of expertise.
 
But this still does NOT prove that Madeleine died and her parents hid the body!
 
50-50 and Amaral's thesis prevented other avenues of investigation.

[Albertini]

I don't but he said it.

Paiva

4:12

jondipaolo:
Paiva: amaral's thesis has prevented other theories from being investigated.

This just shows the PJ's lack of joined up thinking and lack of training and lack of expertise.
 
But this still does NOT prove that Madeleine died and her parents hid the body!
 
50-50 and Amaral's thesis prevented other avenues of investigation.

But as that trial demonstrated Inspector Ricardo Paiva, Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida, Luis Neves, the national director of the DCCB, Guilhermino Encarnacao, head of the Faro Policia Judiciaria, Inspector Paulo Ferreira and Inspector Joao Carlos were all in agreement with the focus of the investigation being on the McCanns as prime suspects.

Kind of blows the idea that it was all Amaral's fault as some rogue cop intent on fitting up the McCann's completely out of the water.

We also know that after Amaral was dismissed even Rebelo's activities were focused on the group and their actions.

The rogue cop line was all nonesense anyway as how can one police officer in such a wide ranging and high profile enquiry bend the investigation to fit up or chase the parents?

It's simply not possible.

[faithlilly]

I don't but he said it.

Paiva

4:12

jondipaolo:
Paiva: amaral's thesis has prevented other theories from being investigated.

This just shows the PJ's lack of joined up thinking and lack of training and lack of expertise.
 
But this still does NOT prove that Madeleine died and her parents hid the body!
 
50-50 and Amaral's thesis prevented other avenues of investigation.

I have never thought that tweets sat right with the rest of Paiva's evidence. Perhaps Anne, who was in the court at the time, can through some light on the issue.

[AnneGuedes]

Magalhães e Menezes said in his report that unfortunately Madeleine was more likely dead than alive (2008). In 2010, GA's lawyer insisted in having a percentage about dead vs alive, Menezes said he couldn't say.., the lawyer suggested 50:50 and Menezes, relieved, said yes.

[AnneGuedes]

I have never thought that tweets sat right with the rest of Paiva's evidence. Perhaps Anne, who was in the court at the time, can through some light on the issue.

I didn't hear this and it's surprising, so I guess I would have been surprised and had memorized it. As for the narrative of the 50/50, this isn't what I heard. I was particularly interested in this on a formal topic. The sentence in the report is syntaxically twisted. You don't read it without thinking that MM wasn't at ease at all and tried to say without saying. But there's no other interpretation possible than "it seems more likely she's dead". GA's lawyer tried foolishly to make MM call a cat a cat.
Generally speaking I thought the witnesses were very reserved, they said casually what they had to say without any spirit of resentment though one of them was at stake. The unique surprise was Dra Isabel Duarte, popping up from a Balzac novel, behaving like a witch cursing around. As she's very short she sticked her arms towards the sky like asking the protection of the gods. It was so ridiculous, I pitied the McCanns to have such a counsellor.

[faithlilly]

I didn't hear this and it's surprising, so I guess I would have been surprised and had memorized it. As for the narrative of the 50/50, this isn't what I heard. I was particularly interested in this on a formal topic. The sentence in the report is syntaxically twisted. You don't read it without thinking that MM wasn't at ease at all and tried to say without saying. But there's no other interpretation possible than "it seems more likely she's dead". GA's lawyer tried foolishly to make MM call a cat a cat.
Generally speaking I thought the witnesses were very reserved, they said casually what they had to say without any spirit of resentment though one of them was at stake. The unique surprise was Dra Isabel Duarte, popping up from a Balzac novel, behaving like a witch cursing around. As she's very short she sticked her arms towards the sky like asking the protection of the gods. It was so ridiculous, I pitied the McCanns to have such a counsellor.

Thanks for relying Anne. Seems everything was not as reported in the British media.

[Albertini]

I don't but he said it.

So now you finally agree that the prosecutor's thoery is of equal validity to Amaral's accident theory?

Excellent, we are moving things forward.

[DCI]

So now you finally agree that the prosecutor's thoery is of equal validity to Amaral's accident theory?

Excellent, we are moving things forward.

No I don't.

And please do not alter my posts, by bolding words, I did not bold.

[sadie]

And can you tell me why you think Menezez's opinion on this has any greater validity than Amaral's?

Oh, I think it has, or should I say, is likely to have.

Amaral is a proven perjurer.  Liars and peopple who codone [and allegedly] torture cannot be trusted.

Am afraid that no-one will ever trust Amaral again.  He has done so many awful things.



And, no I am not going thru it all again.  It is all down here recorded in this forum.  Well most of it is anyway.  Might be more to come.

[Mo Stache]

So now you finally agree that the prosecutor's thoery is of equal validity to Amaral's accident theory?

Excellent, we are moving things forward.

The Prosecutor set out his findings after examining all the documentation available to him on the case, whereas Amaral was excused from the case in the early months and would not have been privy to all the documentation. How can you compare the Prosecutor's findings to that of Amaral? The Prosecutors finding is based on the documentation/evidence whereas Amarals theory contains inaccurate forensic interpretation (dog alerts and presents or not of cadaver) and fiction (refer to transport of frozen body in fridge).

As a side, this also raises the question about the documentation Amaral had access to as a civilian.   

[DCI]

I didn't hear this and it's surprising, so I guess I would have been surprised and had memorized it. As for the narrative of the 50/50, this isn't what I heard. I was particularly interested in this on a formal topic. The sentence in the report is syntaxically twisted. You don't read it without thinking that MM wasn't at ease at all and tried to say without saying. But there's no other interpretation possible than "it seems more likely she's dead". GA's lawyer tried foolishly to make MM call a cat a cat.
Generally speaking I thought the witnesses were very reserved, they said casually what they had to say without any spirit of resentment though one of them was at stake. The unique surprise was Dra Isabel Duarte, popping up from a Balzac novel, behaving like a witch cursing around. As she's very short she sticked her arms towards the sky like asking the protection of the gods. It was so ridiculous, I pitied the McCanns to have such a counsellor.

You weren't the only one in court, Anne!

Magalhães e Menezes, wasn't was he?.