So what's next in the libel trial saga?

[pegasus]

"The author describes ..."
Read in context, "the author" clearly means Mr Amaral.
Therefore the text that follows is the Judge summarising what Mr Amaral stated in court about the final report.

[Mr Gray]

"The author describes ..."
Read in context, "the author" clearly means Mr Amaral.
Therefore the text that follows is the Judge summarising what Mr Amaral stated in court about the final report.

Precisely..at last someone can see the truth...the judges are merely repeating amarals testimony...not giving their own opinion

[Mr Gray]

I don't see where the judges are wrong. Eddie marked in the bedroom, the living room and the flower bed.

Try reading it again

[Wonderfulspam]

I don't see where the judges are wrong. Eddie marked in the bedroom, the living room and the flower bed.

The Judge asks wasn’t there something during the investigation that led to their constitution as arguidos.

MW Not particularly. He adds he wasn't involved in that matter.

The Judge states that two facts were established:

1)   The British police dogs detected the scent of human blood and also that consistent with a cadaver bring present.

2)   These dogs detected the smell of human blood in the car rented by the McCanns.

The Judge asks whether these facts are of general knowledge in the UK.

MW Yes, they were, in 2007.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2335.msg77157#new

[Alice Purjorick]

What you are implying is that the judges gave their OWN INTERPRETATION of the report. Grime confirmed that the dogs alerted but did not confirm that the alert was to cadaver odour...Grime's the expert but what you are suggesting is that the judges have made comments on the alerts that Grime has not endorsed

No it isn't. Just read the bit of the archiving report I have quoted and tell us where it differs in essence from the Appeal Court statements
No matter, it does not make any difference. The book ban was overturned, the Supreme Court upheld that decision and thus far the McCanns have taken no further action in that respect. The rest is argument for the sake of it.

[stephen25000]

Has the possibility of death in the apartment been disproved ?

A yes or no will suffice.

[ferryman]

Has the possibility of death in the apartment been disproved ?

A yes or no will suffice.

Put it like this. 

Occasionally questions of doubt arise.

Sean Jenkins was convicted of the death of his step-daughter Billie-Jo on the testimony of an expert witness that blood traces found on his clothes could only have got there if Billie-Jo had been alive when he was with her.

But then his conviction was overturned on the expert testimony of another witness who said that blood might, actually have transferred to his clothing after her death.

Flip of the coin and Sean Jenkins got benefit of the doubt but was not awarded compensation for wrongful imprisonment. 

Nothing like that applies in Madeleine's disappearance.

[stephen25000]

Put it like this. 

Occasionally questions of doubt arise.

Sean Jenkins was convicted of the death of his step-daughter Billie-Jo on the testimony of an expert witness that blood traces found on his clothes could only have got there if Billie-Jo had been alive when he was with her.

But then his conviction was overturned on the expert testimony of another witness who said that blood might, actually have transferred to his clothing after her death.

Flip of the coin and Sean Jenkins got benefit of the doubt but was not awarded compensation for wrongful imprisonment. 

Nothing like that applies in Madeleine's disappearance.

I.e. NO.

[Angelo222]

Put it like this. 

Occasionally questions of doubt arise.

Sean Jenkins was convicted of the death of his step-daughter Billie-Jo on the testimony of an expert witness that blood traces found on his clothes could only have got there if Billie-Jo had been alive when he was with her.

But then his conviction was overturned on the expert testimony of another witness who said that blood might, actually have transferred to his clothing after her death.

Flip of the coin and Sean Jenkins got benefit of the doubt but was not awarded compensation for wrongful imprisonment. 

Nothing like that applies in Madeleine's disappearance.

Without a cadaver very little is certain yet.  For anyone knows she fell down a hole.

[Anna]

The Judge asks wasn’t there something during the investigation that led to their constitution as arguidos.

MW Not particularly. He adds he wasn't involved in that matter.

The Judge states that two facts were established:

1)   The British police dogs detected the scent of human blood and also that consistent with a cadaver bring present.

2)   These dogs detected the smell of human blood in the car rented by the McCanns.

The Judge asks whether these facts are of general knowledge in the UK.

MW Yes, they were, in 2007.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2335.msg77157#new

Thank you for that WS. I seem to have missed it.
However do take heed of the warning at the beginning of that thread.

[Carana]

This is copied from the translated judgement...

The author describes, in detail, several facts and circumstances that were not coherent in between each other, from the outset of the investigation, thus prompting contradictory conclusions.

In the archiving dispatch that is signed by two Public Ministry Magistrates, it is written that "From the analysis of the set of depositions that were made it became evident that important details existed which were not fully understood and integrated, which needed to be tested and verified on the location of events itself, thus rendering it possible to establish the apparent failures to meet and the lack of synchronisation, even divergences, in a diligence that is suited for that effect, which was the reconstitution, which was not possible to perform, despite the commitment that was displayed by the Public Ministry and by the PJ, to attain that purpose…"

In that very same dispatch, the result of the tests that were performed by the sniffer dogs "Eddie" (a dog that was specially trained to signal cadaver odour) and "Keela" (specially trained to detect the presence of human blood) are mentioned.

"Eddie" marked (signalled) cadaver odour:

• in the McCann couple's bedroom in apartment 5-A (from where little Madeleine disappeared) in the area next to the wardrobe;

• in an area next to the living room window that has direct access to the street, behind a sofa;

• and in an area of the same apartment's garden.



Many posters have assumed that the statements in red are from the judges...I would say these posters are wrong. I would say that these are the details amaral submitted to the court to support his argument. This belief is supported by the fact that the references to the dogs actions are wrong... I don't see the judges making such glaring errors

I'm confused.

Amaral has stated on several occasions that the book was based on the investigation up until he left (i.e., the first five months).

He was there when the dogs reacted, but he didn't attempt to organise a reconstruction during his tenure.

Why then does the appeal submission include a mention of attempts to organise a reconstruction (made by his successor quite some time later), as if it were a contemporaneous fact?

ETA: Further on:

"In any case, the fact is that the indications that were mentioned above were sufficient to make the McCann couple arguidos."


What????

[Brietta]

The learned judge appears to have a very clear understanding of exactly what the situation is in regard to the legal status of Madeleine's parents.

I think this may well be reflected in the judgement she will make.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The judge (Maria Emília de Melo e Castro) is now asking Emma Loach questions

MC - How did the book hamper the investigation?
EL - says that if everybody thought Madeleine had died then nobody would look for her. If people thought the parents were involved, they wouldn’t help.

MC - But when the book was published the McCanns were no longer arguidos.
EL - says the public, according to the US, is very important to find missing children.

MC - If some people suspect, from where is their conviction formed?
EL - says it is mainly through the internet. GA's book is the first thing that appears on internet. The
people don't know these allegations aren't true according to the criminal investigation.

MC - People don't know?
EL - hesitates, she says the majority don't.

MC - Are the McCanns ashamed of what is said in the book?
EL - answers yes.

MC - Why?
EL - says the public believes they had covered up and then asked for money to search for Madeleine.

MC - The fact they are innocent didn't suppress this feeling?
EL - says the fact they are innocent necessitates they must find Madeleine. They were more ashamed to be arguidos than because of what the book says.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id454.html

[Wonderfulspam]

The learned judge appears to have a very clear understanding of exactly what the situation is in regard to the legal status of Madeleine's parents.

I think this may well be reflected in the judgement she will make.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The judge (Maria Emília de Melo e Castro) is now asking Emma Loach questions

MC - How did the book hamper the investigation?
EL - says that if everybody thought Madeleine had died then nobody would look for her. If people thought the parents were involved, they wouldn’t help.

MC - But when the book was published the McCanns were no longer arguidos.
EL - says the public, according to the US, is very important to find missing children.

MC - If some people suspect, from where is their conviction formed?
EL - says it is mainly through the internet. GA's book is the first thing that appears on internet. The
people don't know these allegations aren't true according to the criminal investigation.

MC - People don't know?
EL - hesitates, she says the majority don't.

MC - Are the McCanns ashamed of what is said in the book?
EL - answers yes.

MC - Why?
EL - says the public believes they had covered up and then asked for money to search for Madeleine.

MC - The fact they are innocent didn't suppress this feeling?
EL - says the fact they are innocent necessitates they must find Madeleine. They were more ashamed to be arguidos than because of what the book says.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id454.html

Emma Loach was a cracking witness....


ID – Question missing, likely "To what is due the effect of the book?"

EL thinks that the "nice, easy conclusion" explains the success of the book. There were many interviews and articles about the book, it was a kind of media tsunami. This upset and harmed more and more the McCanns. The documentary that claimed their daughter was dead and that they concealed the body created a lot of pain. It spread rapidly on the internet, with subtitles, millions of people watched it.


ID – How do you know that millions of people watched it?

EL -knows that two million watched it in the UK, but doesn't know how many outside of the UK.
....................

GP – How do you know about the audience of 2 millions? Have you a special access to these data?

EL answers no.

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

Making sh*t up as she went along, no wonder she got upset.

[Wonderfulspam]

MC - If some people suspect, from where is their conviction formed?

EL - says it is mainly through the internet. GA's book is the first thing that appears on internet. The
people don't know these allegations aren't true according to the criminal investigation.

MC - People don't know?

EL - hesitates, she says the majority don't.

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

Don't bother us with facts or figures Miss Loach, just 'the people' or 'the majority' of them will do.

Brilliant!

[stephen25000]

MC - If some people suspect, from where is their conviction formed?

EL - says it is mainly through the internet. GA's book is the first thing that appears on internet. The
people don't know these allegations aren't true according to the criminal investigation.

MC - People don't know?

EL - hesitates, she says the majority don't.

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

Don't bother us with facts or figures Miss Loach, just 'the people' or 'the majority' of them will do.

Brilliant!

Well with that 'quality' of witness, the only thing the mccanns can look forward to next year, is a large legal bill, and several slices of humble pie.