The archiving report ...

[Mo Stache]

Yes but we weren't talking about them going to court, we were talking in the context of the investigation.

They needed to prove their innocence to the investigation, not a court.

Had they fully co-operated with the investigation, and been able to act out their movements in a manner they believe exonerates them, then they had nothing to worry about and their innocence TO THE INVESTIGATION (note not a court) could have been demonstrated.

Come on, keep up.

Why would they have had to demonstrate their innocence if everything was documented in the files and the police where able to use the documented statements to, for example - do a reconstruction without the McCann's. They did a reconstruction without the McCann's in a documentary, not so? What did that prove? Did that shed any new light on the case? The same result would have been obtained if the McCann's had been physically involved in the reconstruction.

If the INVESTIGATION had all the facts/statements one has to ask oneself what then was the real purpose of insisting that the McCann's demonstrate their innocence.

[stephen25000]

It would depend on your definition of theory.

Abstract reasoning; speculation.
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment.
An ideal or hypothetical situation.
A concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena.

I would go as far as to say, there are more facts/forensic evidence that doesn't support Amarals 'death' theory.

One can't eliminate the presents of an abductor (forensic evidence) because of the contaminated crime scene but one can eliminate the presents of cadaver/death because there is no forensic evidence to support the dog alerts.

You should really know by now, that an absence of evidence does not mean a crime didn't occur.

That of course operates in both scenarios.

The forensics were inconclusive.

Meanwhile for the umpteenth time plus, there has not been one sign/trace of Madeleine in over 6 years despite the worldwide publicity for the case.

[Mo Stache]

Absolute hogwash.

This is Portugal, not Zimbabwe.

This case would have had to go before a court. It would have been perhaps the most famous trial in the world since OJ Simpson.

Every detail and each piece of evidence would have been thoroughly examined.

To even suggest that any attempt to fit them up and to get it through a court, on a case of this magnitutde is ludicrous.

You could argue the same point in every country in the civilised world (including the UK) where miscarriages of Justice have taken place.

You cannot use rare examples of misfeasance as a reason for not co-operating in the official police investigation.

Why can't one use examples of miscarriage of justice as a reason for not co-operating? If one is aware of the human rights violations of a country then one would be extra careful when co-operating or not, with the authorities.
Every detail and every piece of evidence was examined and it was determined that there was no grounds for a court case. Co-operation or not, there was no grounds for a court case.


 

[Mo Stache]

You should really know by now, that an absence of evidence does not mean a crime didn't occur.

That of course operates in both scenarios.

The forensics were inconclusive.

Meanwhile for the umpteenth time plus, there has not been one sign/trace of Madeleine in over 6 years despite the worldwide publicity for the case.

And there was no trace of many of those missing and found alive years later as well.

[Albertini]

Why would they have had to demonstrate their innocence if everything was documented in the files and the police where able to use the documented statements to, for example - do a reconstruction without the McCann's. They did a reconstruction without the McCann's in a documentary, not so? What did that prove? Did that shed any new light on the case? The same result would have been obtained if the McCann's had been physically involved in the reconstruction.

If the INVESTIGATION had all the facts/statements one has to ask oneself what then was the real purpose of insisting that the McCann's demonstrate their innocence.

See the final report, it clearly states what they sought to acheive in there. Oh and it also mentions the proving innocence thing as well:

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.

[stephen25000]

And there was no trace of many of those missing and found alive years later as well.

Completely different cases , in terms of what happened.

Did they receive worldwide publicity  for over 6 years ?

Or was it publicity at the time they were found ?

[Albertini]

Why can't one use examples of miscarriage of justice as a reason for not co-operating? If one is aware of the human rights violations of a country then one would be extra careful when co-operating or not, with the authorities.
Every detail and every piece of evidence was examined and it was determined that there was no grounds for a court case. Co-operation or not, there was no grounds for a court case.

How was "Every detail and every piece of evidence was examined " when the investigation was incomplete?

[Mo Stache]

See the final report, it clearly states what they sought to acheive in there. Oh and it also mentions the proving innocence thing as well:

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.

The police got their reconstruction albeit not with the McCann's as participants, but they got the reconstruction and it did not shed any new light on the issue nor did it dismiss any doubts concerning the innocence of the missing child's parents. In other words, a pointless exercise.

The issue raised was - the McCann's did not cooperate with the police. Which is incorrect because on most of the requests they did cooperate, but only the one or two they didn't cooperate with was scrutinised.

The one or two the anti McCann's are holding onto for dear life as same evidence of any wrong doing.

They damned if they do and they damned if they don't. 

[Mo Stache]

How was "Every detail and every piece of evidence was examined " when the investigation was incomplete?

Every detail and every piece of evidence available to them at the time.

So you agree then, the investigation had many failings.

[Albertini]

The police got their reconstruction albeit not with the McCann's as participants, but they got the reconstruction and it did not shed any new light on the issue nor did it dismiss any doubts concerning the innocence of the missing child's parents. In other words, a pointless exercise.

The issue raised was - the McCann's did not cooperate with the police. Which is incorrect because on most of the requests they did cooperate, but only the one or two they didn't cooperate with was scrutinised.

The one or two the anti McCann's are holding onto for dear life as same evidence of any wrong doing.

They damned if they do and they damned if they don't.

What reconstruction was that then? Certainly not one with the actual witnessess involved.

They did not co-operate with the PJ's request to perform the reconstruction which the PJ had decided was needed to clarify events.

Who are you, or indeed them as witness/suspects, to question the investigation's needs, methods and strategies?

The point is the official investigation into their missing daughter required it, the importance of it was stressed to them in the emails leading up to the group's decision to not attend, and as a consequence of their refusal the investigation was closed.

Hardly damned if they do and damned if they don't, but a deliberate action using unfounded reasons to kill the investigation into the missing child.

And given this thread where there are unexplained and changes of statements in unison, then that is highly suspicious.

[Albertini]

Why can't one use examples of miscarriage of justice as a reason for not co-operating? If one is aware of the human rights violations of a country then one would be extra careful when co-operating or not, with the authorities.
Every detail and every piece of evidence was examined and it was determined that there was no grounds for a court case. Co-operation or not, there was no grounds for a court case.

So using that logic, any suspect now that Andy redwood lines up as an "abductor" can refuse to comply with the investigation because of Andy's involvement in the Barry George case.

Presumably, as i am applying your logic, you will be more than happy with that?

[Albertini]

Every detail and every piece of evidence available to them at the time.

So you agree then, the investigation had many failings.

Yes in a "disturbed" investigation. Not a completed one exhausting all leads and following up all enquiries.

Which then begs the question, why was it distrubed?

Then we come back to the failure to attend the reconstruction by the group.

I agree it was a failing not to try and force the group to go back to Portugal.

[Albertini]

Lets exam this 'Judge gave Amarals thesis equal status' malarkey. It seems that some people use selective quotes to try prove a point when they forget that those selected statements read in context doesn't necessarily carry the same meaning as what the person using the out of context statements are claiming.

We have the case of a missing child and then we have the issue of the book that was written on the case.

The judges comment stems from the court case in which Amaral was being sued for libel; his theory that the parents are responsible for Madeleine’s death and concealment of her body.

The entire 'tone' of the court proceedings was to establish if Amaral had the right to express his views, which is not the same as determining whether his theory was correct. That was clearly demonstrated by the so called facts he stated in the book which were contrary to the facts in the police files. Take the interpretation of the forensic reports as an example.

The court case was based on whether Amaral had the right to freely express his opinion. And whether that freedom overruled the right of the McCann's being libelled.

The difficulty lies in the fact that the Portuguese and English (UK) law differ in their approach to libel laws. While you can’t publish the book in the UK because it breaches libel laws, it is allowed in Portugal under freedom of expression where it seems libel takes second place to an individual’s right to have ones reputation protected against harm. In other words being called or indirectly labelled a child murderer without evidence, which would stand up in a court of law, harms ones reputation.

Taking into context the reason for court case against Amarals book, it is clear that the judges expressed their ruling on the basis that Amaral had as much right to state his theory as did the Attorney General or any other whose professional view WAS based on fact; ruling not based on factual correctness of the theory but the right to express himself. The equality demonstrated on grounds of right of expression and not any other grounds.

In summary: The judge made a ruling on the issue of Amaral being able to exercise his right of expression/freedom of expression, but this DOES NOT VALIDATE THE CONTENT of the theory but mealy the principle that he was allowed to express that theory. In this context (as it was implied in the first instance). The expression/the right to voice his theory carried as much weights as any other, but it does not imply that the contents of that theory is correct or has any equal weight to any other.     

Conclusion: It is therefore incorrect to claim the judges said Amarals theory holds as much weight as any others.


 

All perfectly reasonable had the Judges simply allowed the book to be released again citing the freedom of expression you mention and left their judgement at that.

However they specifically went above and beyond that in stating categorically that Amaral's theory (in the book) was:

[a] logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he [Amaral] makes of those facts."

And:

but those very same facts, seen from a different angle, may lead to a different conclusion from that of the prosecutors.


So in the ruling the "interpretation" that Amaral makes of those facts: 

logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he [Amaral] makes of those facts

Seen from a different angle may lead to different conclusions:
 
but those very same facts, seen from a different angle, may lead to a different conclusion from that of the prosecutors.

Of course it validates the content of the theory. By calling it a "logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation" that is what the judges feel it is.

If it had no validity other than simply being Amaral's right to freedom of expression, then why describe it as logical, police work related and investigative?

If it was not an equally valid interpretation why say that Amaral's thesis may lead to a different conclusion to that of the prosecutor?

The judges are giving Amaral's interpretation equal weight to the Prosecutor's.

[Mo Stache]

All perfectly reasonable had the Judges simply allowed the book to be released again citing the freedom of expression you mention and left their judgement at that.

However they specifically went above and beyond that in stating categorically that Amaral's theory (in the book) was:

[a] logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he [Amaral] makes of those facts."

And:

but those very same facts, seen from a different angle, may lead to a different conclusion from that of the prosecutors.


So in the ruling the "interpretation" that Amaral makes of those facts: 

logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he [Amaral] makes of those facts

Seen from a different angle may lead to different conclusions:
 
but those very same facts, seen from a different angle, may lead to a different conclusion from that of the prosecutors.

Of course it validates the content of the theory. By calling it a "logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation" that is what the judges feel it is.

If it had no validity other than simply being Amaral's right to freedom of expression, then why describe it as logical, police work related and investigative?

If it was not an equally valid interpretation why say that Amaral's thesis may lead to a different conclusion to that of the prosecutor?

The judges are giving Amaral's interpretation equal weight to the Prosecutor's.

Once again you are electing to quote without recognising the tone or context of the statement/s. What was said was that Amaral had the right of expression his opinion even if it differs from that of the Prosecution.

"Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts." 

In other words; Amaral used his logic, investigative techniques and police skills to make an interpretation of the facts. The judge did NOT say; the theory is based on logic, police-work-related and investigative technique - which is what you are implying. 

You said: "Of course it validates the content of the theory. By calling it a "logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation" that is what the judges feel it is." INCORRECT.

Also; the Prosecutor used logic, police-work-related and investigative technique to come to a conclusion. But his interpretation of the facts differed from that of Amarals. And in this lies the crux of the matter.  Amaral is entitled under freedom of expression to do so. To interpret the facts and come to his own conclusion. Nowhere does it infer/the judges say that his theory carries equal weight to that of the Prosecutors or that his theory is logic, based on police work and factually correct. That was not the issue being examined. The freedom of expression was.

"Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts." - Emphasis on interpretation that HE does of those facts. In no way is that a validation of the actual theory.
Important to note!! One must also be very wary of the translation of Portuguese to English in court transcripts.  Often the meaning of something is changed in translation.

[faithlilly]

Once again you are electing to quote without recognising the tone or context of the statement/s. What was said was that Amaral had the right of expression his opinion even if it differs from that of the Prosecution.

"Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts." 

In other words; Amaral used his logic, investigative techniques and police skills to make an interpretation of the facts. The judge did NOT say; the theory is based on logic, police-work-related and investigative technique - which is what you are implying. 

You said: "Of course it validates the content of the theory. By calling it a "logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation" that is what the judges feel it is." INCORRECT.

Also; the Prosecutor used logic, police-work-related and investigative technique to come to a conclusion. But his interpretation of the facts differed from that of Amarals. And in this lies the crux of the matter.  Amaral is entitled under freedom of expression to do so. To interpret the facts and come to his own conclusion. Nowhere does it infer/the judges say that his theory carries equal weight to that of the Prosecutors or that his theory is logic, based on police work and factually correct. That was not the issue being examined. The freedom of expression was.

"Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts." - Emphasis on interpretation that HE does of those facts. In no way is that a validation of the actual theory.
Important to note!! One must also be very wary of the translation of Portuguese to English in court transcripts.  Often the meaning of something is changed in translation.

What, like Paiva's comment about Amatal's theory stopping other lines of enquiry or is this the 'selective' mistranslations again ?