Author Topic: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?  (Read 52298 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

ferryman

  • Guest
Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
« on: October 11, 2015, 03:34:16 PM »
I take this to be the most questionable passage from Dr Amaral's book


Quote
After a week of intense work, Harrison presents the results of his study to my coordinating group. Even if we were expecting it, his conclusions confirm our worst fears. The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz. He praises the quality of the work carried out by the Portuguese authorities in trying to find the little girl alive. According to him, the time has come to redirect the searches in order to find, this time, a body hidden in the surrounding area.

AMAZING STATISTICS

Great Britain has at its disposal the world's biggest data bank on homicide of children under five years old. Since 1960, the count is 1528. Harrison is well acquainted with its contents. He often draws information from there which helps him to resolve similar cases. Valuable information can be found there on on various criminal modus operandi, places where bodies are hidden, techniques used to get rid of a body. He relates that on one occasion, thanks to the data, he was able to deduce the maximum distance a body might be found in relation to where the crime had been committed.

The figures quoted in the report he hands over give us the shivers. The crimes, including those of a sexual nature, are committed by the parents in 84% of cases; 96% are perpetrated by friends and relatives. In only 4% of them is the murderer or abductor a total stranger to the victim. In this roundabout way, Mark Harrison points out that the guilty party may be a person close to Madeleine, and even her own parents. From now on, we have to explore this track, especially as the others have proved fruitless.


Here, from his report, is what Harrison actually said:


Quote
Sub Surface Burial on P D Luz Beach

For Body Disposal Purposes The Beach Can Be Separated And
Discussed Into 6 Areas.

Figure 2.The boulders in the rock falls are too large
to man handle. Vegetative growth suggests rock
falls have been in situ for some time. The low energy
wave action would not move any of the boulders. It
is possible a small child could be secreted amongst
the rocks in natural voids.

Figure 3.The cliff edge at the base of the beach is at
an angle that inhibits soil removal. The shale re fills
any hole dug and is unsuitable to achieve a burial.

Figure4.At the base of the cliff are wave cuts where
the bedrock has been eroded by wave action. Here
sand can be easily dug but after a few centimetres
the digger reaches the bed rock, preventing a
successful burial.

Figure 5.The beach cusps or berms are mounds of
sand made by wind action. These cusps form at the
limit of the tides reach and would only be recovered
in storm conditions. Digging on the cusps is easy but to achieve as
more than a few centimetres depth is very difficult to
the fine sand granules refill the hole


Figure 6.The dark sand in this image shows the
intertidal area. Here digging and burial could
possibly be achieved although it would be through a
mixture of grave1 and water. However any burial
would be quickly exposed by wave action and
ultimately taken into the sea.

Harrison explicitly ruled out burial.

The reference Harrison made to statistics is this:


Quote
I am currently of the opinion on the available information and statistical datasets that if death has occurred, that it is possible that Madeleine McCann’s body has been disposed into the sea at Praia da Luz. (See my second report entitled “NPIA OP TASK Search Doc Beach and Marine”).

And note the provisor: if death has occurred ...

So, Amaral has misrepresented Harrison as saying that Madeleine is definitely dead, that the statistics point to Madeleine being definitely dead, that her remains are buried somewhere in close proximity to PdL (when Harrison
ruled out burial) and that her parents might well be responsible (when Harrison reached no, definitive, conclusion about what might have happened to Madeleine.)

Do Amaral's comments not verge on the libellous?

[Title and Post edited by Admin]

36
« Last Edit: October 12, 2015, 03:05:18 AM by Admin »

Offline Brietta

Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2015, 06:07:38 PM »
I take this to be the most questionable passage from Dr Amaral's book

Here, from his report, is what Harrison actually said:


Harrison explicitly ruled out burial.

The reference Harrison made to statistics is this:


And note the provisor: if death has occurred ...

So, Amaral has misrepresented Harrison as saying that Madeleine is definitely dead, that the statistics point to Madeleine being definitely dead, that her remains are buried somewhere in close proximity to PdL (when Harrison
ruled out burial) and that her parents might well be responsible (when Harrison reached no, definitive, conclusion about what might have happened to Madeleine.)

Do Amaral's comments not verge on the libellous?

It would seem to be at the least a misrepresentation of the facts.  If intentional, reprehensible indeed.  If unintentional it surely raises question about the inability to interpret information of the person who was put in charge of a missing child investigation.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2015, 02:17:41 AM by Admin »
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2015, 06:10:43 PM »
I take this to be the most questionable passage from Dr Amaral's book

Here, from his report, is what Harrison actually said:


Harrison explicitly ruled out burial.

The reference Harrison made to statistics is this:


And note the provisor: if death has occurred ...

So, Amaral has misrepresented Harrison as saying that Madeleine is definitely dead, that the statistics point to Madeleine being definitely dead, that her remains are buried somewhere in close proximity to PdL (when Harrison
ruled out burial) and that her parents might well be responsible (when Harrison reached no, definitive, conclusion about what might have happened to Madeleine.)

Do Amaral's comments not verge on the libellous?

There are only two possibilities.

Alive or Dead.

Given the time elapsed and not one trace of Madeleine, most probably dead.

Now ferryman, would you call that libel ?

Remembering of course Redwood said she was alive or dead.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2015, 02:18:28 AM by Admin »

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2015, 06:54:18 PM »
There are only two possibilities.

Alive or Dead.

Given the time elapsed and not one trace of Madeleine, most probably dead.

Now ferryman, would you call that libel ?

Remembering of course Redwood said she was alive or dead.

I wouldn't call that libel.... I would call that a fair summary
But that is not what amaral said
Amaral claimed in his book that Maddie died in the apartment due to an accident and her parents covered things up

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2015, 08:02:04 PM »
This sentence:

 ... there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz.

Mark Harrison never said any such thing.

And this sentence.

In this roundabout way, Mark Harrison points out that the guilty party may be a person close to Madeleine, and even her own parents.

Mark Harrison never said any such thing.

How is misrepresenting what a senior investigator said to implicate the parents of a missing child in her disappearance other than libellous?

The penultimate sentence of Harrison's final report makes plain that Harrison drew no firm conclusions about what happened to Madeleine (even whether she was alive or dead, let alone who might have committed crime(s) against her.)
« Last Edit: October 12, 2015, 02:24:27 AM by Admin »

Offline mercury

Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
« Reply #5 on: October 11, 2015, 08:11:27 PM »
How about leaving it to the courts, the only place it matters really

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
« Reply #6 on: October 11, 2015, 08:12:36 PM »
How about leaving it to the courts, the only place it matters really

Didn't the courts rule in favour of the McCanns back in April?

Offline mercury

Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
« Reply #7 on: October 11, 2015, 08:14:53 PM »
Didn't the courts rule in favour of the McCanns back in April?
If they did in libel then there's no point to this thread surely?


stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
« Reply #8 on: October 11, 2015, 08:16:09 PM »
Didn't the courts rule in favour of the McCanns back in April?

and yet again, where did it say libel in the court documents ?

Offline mercury

Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
« Reply #9 on: October 11, 2015, 08:18:17 PM »
Marcos Correia, the controversial medium come lawyer involved in this case, was sued by Mr Amaral for libel IIRC , and he (MC) only won because he said he believed what he said was true not that it was


Edited as posted it the wrong way around
« Last Edit: October 11, 2015, 08:25:22 PM by mercury »

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
« Reply #10 on: October 11, 2015, 08:22:07 PM »
If they did in libel then there's no point to this thread surely?

Why not?

Some people erroneously insist that the libel trial was a damages trial.

And the (developing) saga of the appeal is interesting, to say the least.

Just what are Amaral's grounds of appeal?

To be clear, defamation is falsehoods (in Portugal, proved) that lower reputation. 

In the above extract we have a number of proved falsehoods that assuredly lower reputation, written by Amaral in his book, sold in vast numbers across countries of Europe.

There are many more examples.

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
« Reply #11 on: October 11, 2015, 08:24:03 PM »
Marcos Correia, the controversial medium come lawyer involved in this case, sued Mr Amaral for libel IIRC , and he only won because he said he believed what he said was true not that it was

The McCanns are able to disprove droves of what Amaral wrote in his book or said in interviews.

Frozen cadaver remains

We policemen, experts ....

Offline mercury

Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
« Reply #12 on: October 11, 2015, 08:24:22 PM »
Why not?

Some people erroneously insist that the libel trial was a damages trial.

And the (developing) saga of the appeal is interesting, to say the least.

Just what are Amaral's grounds of appeal?

To be clear, defamation is falsehoods (in Portugal, proved) that lower reputation. 

In the above extract we have a number of proved falsehoods that assuredly lower reputation, written by Amaral in his book, sold in vast numbers across countries of Europe.

There are many more examples.

Did my question go over your head or something? I SAID if the court found in the Mccanns favour in a lbel trial then what's the point of this thread? My post #8
« Last Edit: October 11, 2015, 08:27:34 PM by mercury »

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
« Reply #13 on: October 11, 2015, 08:59:50 PM »
This sentence:

 ... there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz.

Mark Harrison never said any such thing.

And this sentence.

In this roundabout way, Mark Harrison points out that the guilty party may be a person close to Madeleine, and even her own parents.

Mark Harrison never said any such thing.

How is misrepresenting what a senior investigator said to implicate the parents of a missing child in her disappearance other than libellous?

The penultimate sentence of Harrison's final report makes plain that Harrison drew no firm conclusions about what happened to Madeleine (even whether she was alive or dead, let alone who might have committed crime(s) against her.)
I read it as  "The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz."
Which is a bit different from that which you are posting.
The best you will do, I think old son, is that Sr Amaral misquoted Mark Harrison.
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?
« Reply #14 on: October 11, 2015, 09:01:34 PM »
I read it as  "The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz."
Which is a bit different from that which you are posting.
The best you will do, I think old son, is that Sr Amaral misquoted Mark Harrison.

To project a message to people across countries of Europe that Mark Harrison declared Madeleine definitely dead ....

And her parents (conceivably) responsible ...