Tick Tock

[C.Edwards]

You appear to be missing the FACT that Amaral did state that his own book could damage the case relating to missing Madeleine. Why have you ignored that fact and instead chosen to fantasise about the future?

The case could result in either party losing. It is impossible to be sure what will happen in that respect. Your presumption that your prediction of the future is simply ridiculous.

I'm not ignoring any such thing. I find it irrelevant.  The McCanns ran roughshod through the rulebook by stampeding all over a "crime scene" and fiddling with evidence (shutters). Then they (as a group) contrived to avoid a reconstruction and failed to answer questions put to them by the investigating police force.  This, in my book, is far more damaging to the investigation than the publication of the beliefs of the investigating police force in a book. In Portuguese.

Once again, blatant hypocrisy on your behalf. You criticise Amaral whilst ignoring the McCanns doing the same if not worse.   

[Montclair]

A more exact translation (IMO): "It is my profound understanding that the disclosure, in this type of book, of all of the facts, could compromise any future undertakings which could be decisive in finding the truth. However, the reader will find facts that they are unaware of, interpretrations of facts - in light of the law - and, naturally, pertinent questions." This means that Gonçalo Amaral is not disclosing all of the facts in order not to perturb the investigation. Some people just see what they want to.

[Chinagirl]

It is my profound understanding that the disclosure, in this type of book, of all of the facts, could compromise any future undertakings which could be decisive in finding the truth.

The meaning here is no different to the one originally offered.

[AnneGuedes]

This is the translation of the relevant paragraph in the introduction to Amaral's book which Gilet refers to above:

In no way does this text seek to challenge the work of my colleagues in the police judiciaire or to compromise the ongoing investigation. I am convinced that the disclosure of all the facts may, in the present case, result in harming the investigation. However, the reader will have access to unpublished information, to new interpretations of events – always with respect for the law – and, of course, to relevant enquiries.

There can be no misunderstanding of Amaral's meaning of the underlined section, unless there is a mistranslation.  So which is it?

This is a mistranslation or a clumsy translation and it had been discussed in the beginning of August. Gilet who launched this as a bomb has been informed and offered a correct translation. I reckon she insists because it serves what appears now to be her dishonest agenda.
What is meant here, as the context leaves clear, is that Mr Amaral took care not to mention all facts because he was aware this could hamper the search for Madeleine.

[Chinagirl]

Anne, could you please offer what you consider to be the "correct" translation, as the one offered above by Montclair essentially says the same thing as the original.

[gilet]

This is a mistranslation or a clumsy translation and it had been discussed in the beginning of August. Gilet who launched this as a bomb has been informed and offered a correct translation. I reckon she insists because it serves what appears now to be her dishonest agenda.
What is meant here, as the context leaves clear, is that Mr Amaral took care not to mention all facts because he was aware this could hamper the search for Madeleine.

You have one opinion of the matter. I have another.  That you then declare my view to be dishonest is simply nasty. It is not dishonest at all. I have considered all the posts you made and do not agree with you. I am not being dishonest at all and would ask that you remove that claim as it is simply a lie. However I do not expect you to do so as I have asked you before and you persist in such lies about me even though I have as much right as you to hold an opinion on the matter.

I believe Amaral fully understood the way in which his book could compromise the case in the future.

Your opinion is no more valid than mine. I have presented my views previously as have you. Neither form definitive proof one way or the other.

We must agree to differ on the matter.

[gilet]

My reply in Blue.

I'm not ignoring any such thing. I find it irrelevant. 

I accused you of missing a particular FACT. Your reply indicates rather illogically that you are not missing or ignoring the fact which I presented but simply find it irrelevant. And then you actually ignore the very fact you claim not to be ignoring in your haste to launch into a diatribe against the McCanns. It is abundantly clear from this very post that you are indeed declaring the fact presented to you as irrelevant and therefore ignoring it thus (as I pointed out) missing the importance of the fact presented to you.

The McCanns ran roughshod through the rulebook by stampeding all over a "crime scene" and fiddling with evidence (shutters).

Thus begins the exaggerated and quite ridiculously angry and incorrect diatribe against the McCanns. Your bias and exaggeration against this couple whose child was not sleeping in the bed they expected her to be in is pathetic.

Your reference to a rulebook is idiotic. Please present us with a copy of this rulebook if such exists. Or are you describing the things you have learned from avid watching of TV detective shows and concatenating the ideas gained from such TV pleasure into this imaginary rulebook you describe?

Yes, the police are trained in how to handle crime scenes. With SOCA and other groups they do abide by rules. But in general the public have no such rulebook and even doctors who may have had a tiny bit of training or on the job experience of handling such scenes will not be expected to know all the rules.
 
And you are completely forgetting one of the fundamental rules of medicine and policing which comes before any rulebook (should you be able to present such) and that is that those directly involved in a particular crime or medical emergency are not in normal circumstances allowed to deal with that emergency or crime. The reasons being obvious; that no matter how well trained they are, the natural responses of a parent or relative dominate and override training, precaution and experience. Have you never seen in those many fictional (or even real) TV images of people being held back from racing into the scene of a crime or accident or fire to rescue or find a loved one?

Your total inability to recognise, allow for and understand this natural reaction is either due to a horrible lack of empathy and understanding or perhaps to a desperation to decry the actions of the McCanns no matter what. That you describe the normal reaction of a group of people who are searching frantically for a child who they have just discovered to be missing as “stampeding” through a crime scene suggests to me that you are deliberately overplaying your hand and exaggerating for effect.  Your description of the natural and normal search any couple and their friends would do as “stampeding all over a “crime scene”” is at once, distasteful and demonstrative of a total lack of empathy and understanding of the real nature of such a scene.


Then they (as a group) contrived to avoid a reconstruction and failed to answer questions put to them by the investigating police force.  This, in my book, is far more damaging to the investigation than the publication of the beliefs of the investigating police force in a book. In Portuguese.


Your reference to some kind of contrived plot to avoid a reconstruction is also demonstrative of a fixed view of the guilt of the McCanns and as all the other Tapas group were involved in this contrivance of their guilt too. You presume that all of them are deliberately covering up the death of a child. A rather far-fetched scenario but one which clearly has to be considered.

However it is not the only scenario as you seem to suggest. There is the alternative scenario that the McCanns actually know that they were not involved in the crime. You make no allowance whatsoever for that in your sad indictment of them. You seem to forget that these questions did not relate in general to the disappearance of a child but wholly to the perceived guilt of the couple and therefore would have no bearing if that couple actually knew they were not involved. You also ignore the fact that the refusal to answer the questions was done under specific legal guidance because of this bias towards parental involvement and lack of reference to the abduction which the parents if they were not guilty would know was rather important.

Can you please, rather than referring to the questions as a whole group, indicate which of the questions would actually have helped in finding the missing little girl?

The same kind of problem arises with the reconstruction. The initial calls for a reconstruction which would have been of real value were denied by Amaral and his team back in June 2007. The reasons given were disturbance of tourists and the need to close air space. But at that stage it is actually possible that Amaral and his team were so convinced of the guilt of the parents they simply did not think such a reconstruction necessary. Only later when they were having trouble finding any evidence of what they had concluded from the very beginning (literally within hours it seems Amaral was convinced of the guilt of the parents) then did they push for a reconstruction. But not a reconstruction as we know it (Crimewatch style) to publicise the case and find more evidence but one in which the public would play no part and there would be no publicity. Again you are so convinced of the guilt of the McCanns that you fail to even consider the alternative scenario where they know they are not guilty and therefore know that such a reconstruction would have no value at all.


Once again, blatant hypocrisy on your behalf. You criticise Amaral whilst ignoring the McCanns doing the same if not worse.

There is no hypocrisy on my part (sic) whatsoever. I am criticising Amaral based on the words which appear in his own book. No matter how those words are translated it seems clear that he is dismissive of the damage he is doing to the case by making money and “defending his honour” by writing the book.

[ferryman]

There is a more simple explanation of course.

ALL the facts haven't been disclosed. >@@(*&)

All the facts haven't been disclosed (publicly, at least).

We've not seen Stuart Prior's report (for example).

But I would take an (educated) guess that it would harm rather than help Amaral's defence ...