The archiving report ...

[Redblossom]

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.

A theory is a theory and facts are facts. Then there are things  in between, interpretation and hypotheses, legalities, understandings and judgements.Both the PP and Amaral did exactly the same in a way. The PP had to make legal decisions, though, Amaral did not. He wrote an account of the investigation as he knew it from May to October 07.

Amaral was not a civilian until the end of June 2008, its entirely possible he would have had access to a case he worked on before being taken off it, but, in any case,isnt that moot as  there is nothing really in his book that is post October 07 when he was off it, is there?

[Albertini]

No I don't.

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

Pardon? Alter your posts?! 

In answer to my question:

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

You replied:

I don't but he said it.

Other than bolding (which is not "altering") i have quoted you word for word!

If you didn't mean to say that then you need to choose your words more carefully.

I can only comment on what you say, not what you should have said.

I'm not a mind reader.

[Albertini]

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.

All well and good apart from real Judges in a real Court disagree with you and with all the evidence of the archiving report to hand found Amaral's thesis an equally valid interpretation of the same facts.

So are you saying you know more in Law than those Judge's, or that they are wrong, or are they in on it with Amaral as well?

[Rachel Granada]

All well and good apart from real Judges in a real Court disagree with you and with all the evidence of the archiving report to hand found Amaral's thesis an equally valid interpretation of the same facts.

So are you saying you know more in Law than those Judge's, or that they are wrong, or are they in on it with Amaral as well?

So the fridge business was a valid interpretation of the facts, then?

[Mo Stache]

All well and good apart from real Judges in a real Court disagree with you and with all the evidence of the archiving report to hand found Amaral's thesis an equally valid interpretation of the same facts.

So are you saying you know more in Law than those Judge's, or that they are wrong, or are they in on it with Amaral as well?

I said, that giving Amaral's theory as much weight as the Prosecutor or Attorney Generals findings is totally wrong. Not equal.   

[Rachel Granada]

I said, that giving Amaral's theory as much weight as the Prosecutor or Attorney Generals findings is totally wrong. Not equal.

    

[Mo Stache]

A theory is a theory and facts are facts. Then there are things  in between, interpretation and hypotheses, legalities, understandings and judgements.Both the PP and Amaral did exactly the same in a way. The PP had to make legal decisions, though, Amaral did not. He wrote an account of the investigation as he knew it from May to October 07.

Amaral was not a civilian until the end of June 2008, its entirely possible he would have had access to a case he worked on before being taken off it, but, in any case,isnt that moot as  there is nothing really in his book that is post October 07 when he was off it, is there?

Amaral LAUNCHED his book 24 July 2008. The case was shelved 21 July 2008. So he had written his book making use of case information that was still under secrecy law and then PUBLISHED IT PRIOR TO THE SHELVING DATE and waited 3 days after the notice of shelving had been given, then launched his book.
Looks to me he had information and access he wasn't privy to.

[Rachel Granada]

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.

Was Magalhaes e Menezes in court, Anne?

[Redblossom]

Amaral LAUNCHED his book 24 July 2008. The case was shelved 21 July 2008. So he had written his book making use of case information that was still under secrecy law and then PUBLISHED IT PRIOR TO THE SHELVING DATE and waited 3 days after the notice of shelving had been given, then launched his book.
Looks to me he had information and access he wasn't privy to.

so? he didnt publish it when the case was under secrecy did he? It was after. Im not sure why you are getting your nickers in a twist over nothing. As I said in my post he didnt put anything in his book post oct 07 so what infact did he publish he wasnt privy to? And how do you know, even if he did, he wasnt privy to it?As for such moral indignation about the secrecy laws, you are having a laugh. Everyone broke them, the Mccanns and Tapas group included,ergo you have  no argument there. As if anyone gives a rats ar se anyway
 



Eta oh sorry, those that give a rats arse are those that wanted it BANNED....NO ONE bans books in this  day and age, it makes you look stupid vindictive and suspicious, another shoot yourself in foot moment for team mccann
 

[Mo Stache]

so? he didnt publish it when the case was under secrecy did he? It was after. Im not sure why you are getting your nickers in a twist over nothing. As I said in my post he didnt put anything in his book post oct 07 so what infact did he publish he wasnt privy to? And how do you know, even if he did, he wasnt privy to it?As for such moral indignation about the secrecy laws, you are having a laugh. Everyone broke them, the Mccanns and Tapas group included,ergo you have  no argument there. As if anyone gives a rats ar se anyway
 

Yes he did, that was one of the facts brought to court by their lawyer Ms Duarte. He launched it after shelving but it was written and published before shelving.

[Redblossom]

Yes he did, that was one of the facts brought to court by their lawyer Ms Duarte. He launched it after shelving but it was written and published before shelving.

So what? And I thought you said it was published  three days after shelving, nit picking irrelevant total nonsense
 

[Mo Stache]

So what? And I thought you said it was published  three days after shelving, nit picking irrelevant total nonsense
 

It's a big "so what" don't you think? Why else would it have been raised in court.

Launched 3 days after. Here is a copy of my post for you to read again.

Amaral LAUNCHED his book 24 July 2008. The case was shelved 21 July 2008. So he had written his book making use of case information that was still under secrecy law and then PUBLISHED IT PRIOR TO THE SHELVING DATE and waited 3 days after the notice of shelving had been given, then launched his book.

[Albertini]

So the fridge business was a valid interpretation of the facts, then?

In the words and style of Gerry McCann "Ask the judges Rachel"

[Rachel Granada]

In the words and style of Gerry McCann "Ask the judges Rachel"

Nice swerve!  Answer the question por favour - and please don't try to alter any meanings by bolding!

[Albertini]

I said, that giving Amaral's theory as much weight as the Prosecutor or Attorney Generals findings is totally wrong. Not equal.

Not according to real judges:

"Where Amaral differs from the Prosecutors who wrote the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he [Amaral] makes of those facts."

We need,  to stress the following: the facts that led to the applicants' constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not sufficiently valued by the Public Ministry's Prosecutors to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen from a different angle, may lead to a different conclusion from that of the prosecutors.

Once again i ask if you are a Judge?